...I guess they just found little red bits. Gruesome to consider.
2,486 karma · joined October 2, 2020
Where is the line drawn between stochastic crimes and free speech?
There are probably some Columbians who were on the receiving side of Escobar's gifting and called him a humanitarian for it.
> One of the strategies of war is to demoralize the enemy so that peace or surrender becomes preferable to continuing the conflict. Strategic bombing has been used to this end. The phrase "terror bombing" entered the English lexicon towards the end of World War II and many strategic bombing campaigns and individual raids have been described as terror bombing by commentators and historians. Because the term has pejorative connotations, some, including the Allies of World War II, have preferred to use euphemisms such as "will to resist" and "morale bombings".[1][2]
This is how the Provisional Irish Republican Army operated, at least some of the time. For instance they telephoned in warnings 90 minutes before the 1996 Manchester bombing (1500 kg bomb, 212 injuries and no fatalities.) I've read somewhere they had established codewords with British authorities so those authorities knew which warnings to take seriously.
(I tried using it myself the last time it was posted, but it made me nauseous.)
Cyclists want to use it against drivers, I'm sure shop owners want to use it against robbers, and doubtlessly paranoid parents want to use it against child nappers. Why should exceptions to a ban be carved out for anybody's pet interest?
What is your basis for this claim? Are you aware that a great deal of atmospheric nuclear testing has been conducted, so the effects of nukes in the atmosphere are fairly well understood? That one of these tests was performed with men standing directly under the bomb, and they were unscathed? Also keep in mind 'modern bomb' is not synonymous with 'big bomb.'
There will be more fires, more deaths, and more changes to regulations. What experts say should be considered, but not treated as dogma. At best they are less wrong than their predecessors but more wrong than their future successors. If the people in that tower had disregarded the advice of extant UK experts, they would have gotten out alive. If that building had been constructed with more stairwells than UK experts presently say is required, they could have gotten out alive. If there had been an operational building wide alarm, as are found in American buildings, those people would have gotten out alive. There is a whole lot wrong with extant regulations in the UK, and commercial interests have politicians and the public ignoring most of it to focus on the cladding fraud (those responsible should be in prison for life, but the cladding fraud is not the only problem this fire revealed.)
> Looking at the hard numbers, pushing evacuations might actually make things worse.
This is not a crowded nightclub we're talking about; rapid evacuation of residential highrises is a reality in America. Please go look at the hard numbers of Grenfell, particularly the timeline of conditions inside the tower. There was ample time to evacuate the tower several times over. In modern America, most of the residents would have been waiting on the sidewalk before the firemen even got there. The building wide fire alarm would have been blasting their eardrums out.
That's the expectation in America surely, but is it in the UK? In America people are told to get the fuck out of buildings as fast as they can when the fire alarm goes off, but in the UK people are told to stay inside high rise buildings, apparently because they have fewer and narrower staircases. Highrise buildings in the UK are evidently not designed to be escapable. I think that should be the real scandal. The cladding is bad and effects hundreds of buildings, but how many UK highrise buildings have inadaquate stairways? Tens of thousands? More? The reason this isn't part of the scandal is probably because the scope of the problem is too enormous.
I encourage you to look up the timeline of events inside Grenfell; if evacuation began when the fire was called in, there would have been ample time for complete evacuation. 14 minutes elapsed between the initial call and fire spreading out the window of the origin flat. People were only reported trapped by smoke ~40 minutes after the fire was called in. These people were killed by the UK's policy of staying put inside buildings on fire.
Anyway, I've seen some videos of people falling a fraction of 15 meters onto pavement and dying. It seems depraved to expect somebody even on the third floor to jump onto pavement.
(Hughes was based out of Culver City in LA.)
Harsh fines are probably the best way to make doctors care though. If they know they risk financial ruin for not securing their records, they'll have a strong personal incentive to remediate their ignorance.
> 25,000-Year-Old Structure Built of the Bones of 60 Mammoths
According to the article, similar albeit smaller structures have also been found across Eastern Europe.
But they simply don't care.
A brief web search suggests to me that about 50% of people who fall from 15 meters (approx 4th floor) will die. Those are awful odds, and most survivers of falls from that height probably aren't landing on the sort of pavement you might expect to be surrounding a high-rise building. And how many of the survivers ever walk again? How many can even feed themselves again?
Seriously, 50% is worse than even russian roulette, a 'game' generally recognized as suicidal.
Anyway, according to Wikipedia: "Some mathematicians and historians, such as Carl Boyer, hold that Zeno's paradoxes are simply mathematical problems, for which modern calculus provides a mathematical solution.[6] Some philosophers, however, say that Zeno's paradoxes and their variations (see Thomson's lamp) remain relevant metaphysical problems.[7][8][9]"
So it seems like a few people are still wasting their time with this.