Exodus 21:22-23 recounts a story of two men who are fighting and injure a pregnant woman, resulting in her subsequent miscarriage. The verse explains that if the only harm done is the miscarriage, then the perpetrator must pay a fine. However, if the pregnant person is gravely injured, the penalty shall be a life for a life as in homicides.
Jesus was Jewish and fetuses aren't considered persons under Jewish law.
> Jesus was Jewish and fetuses aren't considered persons under Jewish law.
A counterargument would be that the Jewish law does not address whether they are persons, but rather focuses on the fine being the solution to the matter. The law also only addresses if the incident should occur by accident (the miscarriage being a side effect), whereas deliberately inducing a miscarriage was not included.
EDIT: Adding more information (also due to reply timers):
@DangItBobby The verse in question:
"When men strive together, and hurt a woman with child, so that there is a miscarriage, and yet no harm follows, the one who hurt her shall be fined, according as the woman’s husband shall lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. If any harm follows, then you shall give life for life."
A few notes.
1. The law only addresses unintentional injury, and does not address intentional injuries.
2. The law does not specify "injury." It could mean an injury that occurs to the pregnant woman, the unborn child, or both. One way to interpret the passage is that if the woman is caused to have an early delivery, then the penalty is a fine, but any further injury to the child is covered under the lex talionis law of “an eye for an eye.”
3. The law actually calls the fetus a "child," and takes foregranted that the woman "is with child" which pretty clearly shows that the personhood was taken foregranted.
No, it's explicitly covered under Jewish law and has been for millennia. Under that the fetus is an organ of the mother under her complete bodily autonomy.
It doesn't say "with child" in the original Hebrew, that's added in your translation.
The way it's translated into English these days directly from the Hebrew is
> If men strive, and wound a pregnant woman so that her fruit be expelled, but no harm befell [her], then shall he be fined as her husband shall assess, and the matter placed before the judges. But if harm befell [her], then shall you give life for life.
> The law actually calls the fetus a "child," and takes foregranted that the woman "is with child"
And yet... If the woman is harmed, it's treated as if you harmed a human (eye for an eye), but if the fetus is harmed, there's a fine. It's quite clear that the fetus is not anywhere near the same importance in this law, not that this should have anything to do with modern law.
> The law also only addresses if the incident should occur by accident (the miscarriage being a side effect), whereas deliberately inducing a miscarriage was not included.
Nope, that's covered. In the verse, accidental damage to the human mother was punishable by death.
Wow! The Pre was the reason I got into development, because I wanted to be able to run through flashcards on the bus to school. So I built Study Buddy[1]. The joke is by the time I figured out how to really build it, I had a car so it wasn't quite as personally useful as it could have been. It was a small community but there was a decent amount of teenage developers, maybe 8 or so of us, and I think 10 years later we're all still in the engineering space, basically because of webOS.
I'm not a lawyer, and I'm especially not a British lawyer, but I do have an Athletic subscription. The article discusses a lawsuit on behalf of Primer League and mostly lower league soccer players in England around their "personal data."
> More than 400 current and former players have signed up to pursue gaming, betting and data-processing companies who utilise their personal statistics without consent or compensation.
As others have said, at least in the states, facts are not copyrightable. TA also states the lawsuit isn't going about this as part of image rights for the players, but doesn't say exactly what the argument will be. It makes it seem this is driven by lower league players who obviously don't have as lucrative careers.
Again IANAL but I don't see how if I go to a game and compile statistics myself how that's a breach of the players' data. Maybe if the club had a contact when I bought the ticket, but then I would think the players would need an agreement with the clubs to make that clear, because I'm not buying the ticket from the player I'm buying it from the club. Same with TV rights, that's league, club, and TV station rights, not player rights.
I think another argument is that the game is enjoyed in many forms, over radio, over television, streamed over the internet - and all of those rights must be purchased, etc. If the game statistics are another form of enjoyment, then it is another form, and should be subject to the same ownership issues as the other channels.
OTOH, I think the argument is very weak. First, precedent is strongly against the players here. Player stats have never been licensed to my knowledge. It's not clear if this is for lack of trying, or if the market for that data used to be superfans, and it was too small to matter.
That said, in any argument I tend to side with the underdog. I think it would be great if Athletic voluntarily shared some of their revenue with players! It would be a good move for them, because it would take wind out of the sails of the counter-parties, and it wouldn't acknowledge the players right to their data, except tacitly.
this have been tried for Chess, and deemed not applicable. Others are allowed to do live coverage of the moves without purchasing any rights. The organizers control the live footage, can ban them from entering the premises to interview players etc., so most will adhere to some form of contract. But if you have no ties there's nothing stopping you from making your own content based on purely the moves being made.
Interesting. Makes me wonder if you could train a machine learning model to take one or more football match video streams as input and turn them into a live 3d model. You then argue that the model simply documents the facts of the game, so does not infringe on the copyright of the original source streams. Then you sell live footage of the model (perhaps with slightly different camera angles)
Makes me wonder if you could train a machine learning model to take one or more football match video streams as input and turn them into a live 3d model.
It's been done.[1] Not for American football, for soccer.
> does not infringe on the copyright of the original source streams
Unless you're getting the raw video stream from all the cameras, it'll be transformed through the producer and director's creative control and that, I suspect, would block you from doing this - it's not longer just "facts", it's a particular interpretation of those "facts" (cf bare recounting of historical events vs someone's book covering the same, I suppose.
> it'll be transformed through the producer and director's creative control and that, I suspect, would block y
I don’t know about that. You’re using the directors production to establish the fact but once you have extruded those facts, it could be argued in principal of not legally that this is a new creative work based off the mere facts.
The "mere facts" would be a wide-angled camera showing the entire pitch and very few people would watch that, I think. Using your judgement as a director/producer to use different angles, cameras, positions, etc. to provide a more interesting spectacle would, for me (IANAL), be transformative enough.
Consider an analogy to classical music - Beethoven's 5th isn't copyrighted but a particular expression of it by an orchestra can be.
It would be a case to be heard in court no doubt. It could be argued that the footage is but one corroborating account of events in the dream theatre. All it would take would be to independently capture some off camera activity. Director has to assert that somehow your work is derivative. I’m not a lawyer of course and if you are I defer to your expertise. It’s an interesting thought experiment none the less.
Where they could get you is how they can protect their "likeness." If you reduced the simulation to only functional aspects of the game, then I don't see how it'd be a problem.
In those instances, nobody is licensing the statistics themselves, they are licensing access to the statistics databases that those organizations have compile and maintain. At least that's my understanding.
Facts are not subject to copyright in the U.S. However, there are other forms of intellectual property. In Illinois, where I am barred, there is a right of publicity - exclusive ownership over your identity when used for a commercial purpose. Could that extend to your name and unique statistical data when used as part of a for-pay entertainment endeavor? Maybe. I'm not aware of any case law one way or another, as I don't practice in IP anymore.
However, my point is that it doesn't seem completely crazy to me to think maybe the UK has some basis in law for this suit. It'll be interesting to keep an eye on it.
The results of my last STD test and the transaction history of my bank account are also facts. We have decided some facts deserve specific protections, at least in the US. So I don't think we can dismiss the players here with "facts are not copyrightable" without knowing what specific statistics are being recorded and to which the players reject. Sports technology has exploded over recent years and the data collection of athletes is now an industry of its own. There can be a range in the degree of ownership that a player deserves from the total number of goals scored in public matches to the heartrate of a player throughout a private practice session.
Those facts (STD test result and banking history) are protected by laws and private agreements which restrict your counter-parties; my understanding is that if some third party somehow learns those facts, they can do basically whatever they want with them (aside from blackmail).
are you saying that if i happen to stumble onto a data leak of those private facts, i can use them to create a non-blackmailing (non-profit?) business?
IANAL, but if you "stumble" onto data that is legally published, then you are free to use it in your business. It is on you to check that you are obtaining the data in a legal manner.
What if it was not intended to be legally published, but you still got access to it because they could not protect it well?
Someone I know actually got access to some stuff this way before; got access to a gold mine that was supposed to be private but someone misconfigured the webserver.
In the US, once a secret is out, it is no longer a secret. The person who originally disseminated the secret might be punished, but subsequent use wouldn't be.
Facts aren't protected by copyright, they are typically just secrets. Your medical history is secret, and protected by law that would punish the person releasing them. But once released there isn't much you can do about it.
Using a somewhat relevant real world analogy: if I go into a house that should’ve been locked (but wasn’t), and I know I don’t have a right to be there, I can’t argue what I did was legal. It’s the same thing with computers: you can’t use[a] data you don’t have a right to use.
if by legally published you mean that the publisher got a legally binding agreement with the patients to publish those 'facts', sure.
but the parent was not putting constraints on how i obtain it ('somehow learns those facts').
if the publisher makes a mistake and i hit the URL and the data is automatically downloaded, i didn't do anything wrong. doubt i can then just use that information though?
The law varies a lot around the world, but in the UK at least you need a lawful basis for collecting, storing and processing information like that (in the GDPR lingo, special category data). Unless you had very explicit permission from the individual I think you'd be hard pressed to demonstrate you had a lawful basis for collecting the information, as it would almost certainly not have been purposefully made available.
IANAL, but you can definitely gossip, and I think you can generally create a business based on selling the data (though you may be subject to some state laws).
"On June 13, 2013, in the case of the Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that human genes cannot be patented in the U.S. because DNA is a "product of nature." The Court decided that because nothing new is created when discovering a gene, there is no intellectual property to protect, so patents cannot be granted. Prior to this ruling, more than 4,300 human genes were patented. The Supreme Court's decision invalidated those gene patents, making the genes accessible for research and for commercial genetic testing."
1. There have been breaches of data protection law (GDPR as implemented in the Data Protection Act 2018), e.g. players did not consent to data transfer, the data isn't accurate, etc. and it's done on a commercial basis.
2. These breaches were injurious to the economic prospects of the affected players and therefore damages should be awarded.
I would imagine that the cause of action will be the tort of negligence against whoever sold the data on, and/or the gaming, betting, and data-processing companies. This is because they arguably had a duty of care to the players, the duty was breached, and the players suffered some harm -- based solely on the facts in this article.
Regarding personal compilation of statistics, that's fine - there's an exemption for activities of a purely personal nature in the GDPR - which is why you wouldn't get caught, but commercial exploitation of the data falls outside of that.
The idea that everything remotely involving data is forbidden under GDPR is giving it a bad name. I'm reminded of every Comcast sin being labeled as a "net neutrality" issue.
There are probably other exemptions that would apply for innocuous activity freely done in public, with the explicit understanding that it would be filmed.
I doubt statistics won't be consider personal data. For example "Someone shot 5 shots on goal" is not exactly personal data. "Simon Munster played 54 mintues" should not be personal data it's a fact of a public event.
A famous athlete wearing a brand sneaker is also just a fact of a public event. Yet if that brand uses it in advertisement they still need to pay the athlete for permission.
No they need to pay the athlete to wear the brand. Otherwise he wears a different brand that pays him. They also pay for the time the athlete spends making ads for the brand.
If the player just wears the brand through their own choice and they company advertises "As worn by Jordan in NBA all-star game!" then they would not need to pay.
Ads and stats are two completely different things.
GDPR personal data is anything relating to an identifiable person. It’s not an expectation of privacy standard. Data gathered by observing you in public is protected the same as data you share with the controller in confidence.
I think the challenge will be persuading courts that actions that users are paid to undertake in public and contractually agreed to reassign relevant image rights to are [i] 'personal data' under the intended meaning of GDPR and that [ii] something they didn't have informed consent about the possibility third parties might have access to when signing those contracts. Proving actual instances of harm suffered from the dissemination of unfavourable statistics is also going to be tricky (even though there are undoubtedly players that have lost out). It's plausible the net effect of increased statistics on player salaries is positive; certainly they haven't gone down on average.
Since most player contracts are frequently renegotiated and most clubs use third party databases and generate revenue from betting companies (so if necessary they'd all end up with clauses permitting this data use), the long term effects of a favourable stretch of the definition of 'personal data' are more likely to have chilling implications for people collating activity/performance metrics or compiling biographies of other types of public figure anyway...
>Proving actual instances of harm suffered from the dissemination of unfavourable statistics is also going to be tricky (even though there are undoubtedly players that have lost out).
All you would need is one club saying they searched the data for say "any player over six foot" and one player who fit the search term but the data was inaccurate.
I think betting is likely to have an unusually negative economic impact on the players. Loss avoidance means people are more likely to remember players ‘underperforming’ expectations than exceeding them. That’s going to have a negative impact on their marketability as paid sponsors independent of actual performance.
It’s questionable if they can win, but demonstrating damages may be the easiest part of this case.
I think proving a specific instance of lost sponsorship income to the satisfaction of a court is going to be extraordinarily difficult, especially if the argument is that consumers draw more adverse inferences from commercial datasets (which they generally don't have access to themselves; betting companies use them to help set the odds) than watching the matches.
Even more so when the context is that virtually any employer of professional footballers derives some of their revenue from betting, and betting companies are the primary sponsors of half the English Premier League teams and the English Football League organization
You can demonstrate harm without showing specific damages. Damaging someone’s reputation for example isn’t acceptable.
It’s the same basic principle as speeding or drunk driving being illegal even if nobody was actually harmed, putting people at significant risk of harm is not acceptable.
It’s a team sport so they don’t optimize for fantasy leagues. If they are pulled to avoid risk of injury on a blowout their stats look worse. Essentially, a 2:0 win could look worse than a 2:3 loss.
In effect their a RNG that happens to make people dislike them.
Yes, I quite agree that the prospect of success appears remote. They would have an arguable case for negligence regarding data inaccuracy though, so I wouldn't be surprised if they submit that as an additional claim and abandon the GDPR claim if that seems likely to fail.
It seems there's a huge difference if your data is collected when you engage in a private activity (i.e. was not intended for public consumption)and participating in a public event where your behaviour is intended to be consumed by the public.
The GDPR primarily focuses on the intent of the person processing or collecting the data rather than whether the activity you engaged in was private or public, although it does take into account reasonable expectations around privacy as well. I suppose it focuses on that because it's more flexible to enforce.
Yeah, but there are trade secrets, for example, or illegal numbers. I brought them up because thought they are related. There is also medical history or psychiatric history.
If you broadcast the game, that's not just facts but playing audio that someone records. Just telling the result or current state, sure, that's just data - but I never heard that there's a license for that.
I'm a young guy, 25, with no underlying health conditions. Could stand to lose 10-15 pounds. Covid put me on my back for a good two weeks. Even now, five and a half months after I had it, I still get some headaches and chest pain if I do anything too strenuous.
I don't really consider myself a long-hauler, based on what I've read of their symptoms I'm way better off. I know at some point reading stuff like this is fear mongering because anybody can drop dead for any reason at any time. But I still check everything every day, to make sure that I'm alright. It's hard to communicate to people who haven't had it yet that you don't know what's going to set it off.
I had plain old regular flu in January/Feb 2019, it almost knocked me flat and arrived on the same week I was moving house just to amp things up. It wasn't until June that I actually felt normal again and didn't feel like sleeping 13 hours a day.
Having read about and listened to reports about covid "long haulers" (look up Vincent Racaniello's YouTube channel[0], his podcast team of virologists, doctors and immunologists discuss this frequently) I'm making pretty damned sure I'm taking every precaution to avoid becoming infected with coronavirus, especially now that I'm in my 50's. I don't think you're fear mongering, for some people succumbing to covid can leave some pretty nasty long term effects.
Yeah, I had a flu about 8 months ago. It was utter hell.
I was in bed for a good week and a half, the fever and just feeling like I was dying was awful, at some points during it I couldn't walk from bed to the en-suite bathroom without feeling like I was going to pass out.
Even about 4 months or so later the cough persisted to the point where I had to go to hospital to get my throat and lungs x-ray'd as I was coughing up thick bloody mucus.
It was hell, also rashes which I presume were caused by the fever are still annoying me now occasionally with random outbreaks of horrible itching.
Fuck that noise. I think that was the first time I've had the flu. If covid is even worse than the flu then I want no part of it!
When I had the flu a few years ago, I regretted not having a will. I texted a family member how to get my things in order, as that was all I could physically muster.
Then I got better. It wasn't as bad as the flu could get, but I felt what it feels like to have your body stop so totally that even going to the bathroom to vomit is a herculean task, danger heightened by the stairs I'd stumbled past. It felt like I was simply going to die. And many have it worse, even among those who live.
Of course, sometimes it's not too much. Broad range on these things.
Such a strange virus. I’m 34, just found out I have the antibodies. At no point in the last 7 months did I feel the slightest bit sick at all. So I guess I’m just one of the lucky ones, or it was a false positive. Hope you continue to heal and get back to normal soon!
Any idea what your ballpark vitamin D situation was prior to catching Covid? And how much sunlight exposure were you getting on average?
My doc noticed my vitamin D level was a little low ~5 years back so he recommended I take some over the counter vitamin D supplements....which I've been taking casually since then. Obviously it's anecdotal, but I rarely ever get sick.
Could you describe what you mean by "too strenuous"?
I don't know if I ever had it (I still get tested occasionally), but I don't ever feel 100% anymore. I don't know if this feeling is psychological or if it has something to do with COVID-19.
> COVID-19 has existed for less than six months, and it is easy to forget how little we know about it. The standard view is that a minority of infected people, who are typically elderly or have preexisting health problems, end up in critical care, requiring oxygen or a ventilator. About 80 percent of infections, according to the World Health Organization, “are mild or asymptomatic,” and patients recover after two weeks, on average. Yet support groups on Slack and Facebook host thousands of people like LeClerc, who say they have been wrestling with serious COVID-19 symptoms for at least a month, if not two or three. Some call themselves “long-termers” or “long-haulers.”
> I interviewed nine of them for this story, all of whom share commonalities. Most have never been admitted to an ICU or gone on a ventilator, so their cases technically count as “mild.” But their lives have nonetheless been flattened by relentless and rolling waves of symptoms that make it hard to concentrate, exercise, or perform simple physical tasks. Most are young. Most were previously fit and healthy. “It is mild relative to dying in a hospital, but this virus has ruined my life,” LeClerc said. “Even reading a book is challenging and exhausting. What small joys other people are experiencing in lockdown—yoga, bread baking—are beyond the realms of possibility for me.”
> COVID-19 symptoms can sometimes persist for months. The virus can damage the lungs, heart and brain, which increases the risk of long-term health problems.
The rest of the studies cited by Mayo are all in the same range, feel free to check. Mayo Clinic or not, you're seriously going to draw conclusions over this?
What, pray tell, does it take for something to be considered "scientific" in your mind? Those sample sizes are nothing to sneeze at for a brand new pandemic. And what conclusions do you think anyone is drawing other than "some percent of people are affected by covid for the long term?" Especially on the comments for a post detailing a significant percent of covid positive athletes being affected by myocarditis?
That article is terrible. It's anecdotal, a biased sample from a group of people who self-identify as "long-haulers".
If you conduct a survey of a group of anti-vaccination activists, I'm sure that a high percentage will tell you that vaccines gave their child autism.
Moreover, this:
"A quarter of respondents in the Body Politic survey have tested negative, but that doesn’t mean they don’t have COVID-19."
Okay. I guess it doesn't mean that, but it means that you should be skeptical of the claims of causality.
I wouldn't be surprised if it turned out to be true though. Post viral fatigue has been a thing since before COVID it just never got any attention because it affected too few people.
I had idiopathic post viral hypersomnia in graduate school, from a bad respiratory infection. For more than entire semester, I could do nothing but sleep for 12+ hours a day. On one occasion, I slept through an entire day. I even fell asleep in the student union once with my laptop in front of me. Needless to say, it wasn't there when I woke up.
No treatment was really able to help me. I was already on adderall, and, while it could keep me upright, I felt like a zombie the whole time. I ended up consulting a sleep neurologist, who basically said they could try "activating" antidepressants (I was already on one), or stimulants, which I was also already on. I don't know if modafinil was a thing yet, but I never heard them mention it.
I thought my life was over. What could I even do with my life, if I always had to sleep 12-14+ hours a day? No doctor seemed to be able to do anything, there was no specific cause, and it's such a rare condition that most people don't know it exists. That, along with the stigma that comes with invisible disabilities (and, believe me, this certainly was disabling) almost made me want to give up.
Then, I started getting better. I didn't know why I got better, but, at that point, I didn't care. I had my life back.
All in all, it was an awful experience, which I wouldn't even wish on someone I hated.
"Idiopathic" means that the cause is unknown. So when you say "idiopathic post-viral...from X", you're trying to imply something that cannot be implied. One may have happened after the other, but the "idiopathic" means "it's unlikely to have been caused by it".
Not for nothing: I had idiopathic hypersomnia in graduate school, too -- it tends to happen when you're depressed from being in graduate school. As you were already on an antidepressant, and it was a suggested treatment for your illness, it sounds like this is a more probable cause than the one that you're trying to imply.
>If you conduct a survey of a group of anti-vaccination activists, I'm sure that a high percentage will tell you that vaccines gave their child autism.
If people have vague symptoms that are uncertain and ambiguous, then their opinions on the nature of their illness are probably not terribly useful or accurate.
But if there exists a severe illness, it seems almost certain that there are some people out there who have a mild form of it that is ambiguous and uncertain because there is a spectrum.
More generally, I believe that evolution implies that diseases evolve in a manner such that people find them hard to identify. Because humans are pretty ruthless at eliminating diseases that catch their attention. HIV is an example of a virus that had gotten very close to coexisting, but then people noticed it and have been trying to wipe it out. Vague chronic problems that are blamed on the victim are inherently what everything logically has to become in the long run.
To take the argument to the extreme, even hypochondria must be a physical disorder, even though of course like cancer etc. there might be many causes that are arguably not the same.
I'm not claiming that it's impossible that there are long-term Covid symptoms. It's clearly possible: we know that it happens to a non-trivial percentage of people who are infected with influenza, and other common viruses.
What we don't know -- and what articles like this ignore -- is how common and serious the symptoms are. And asking a group of people, one-quarter of whom haven't even tested positive for the virus, to self-report everything that has them feeling crummy, is not science.
The Atlantic is not a scientific journal, but their "science writer" should at least be aware of this basic standard of evidence, and at best, avoid the temptation to spread panic based on speculation.
In normal times, I could care less what the Atlantic chooses to publish under the name of "science". But right now, thoughtless misinformation from media authorities is leading to panic, and it's the equivalent of yelling "fire" in a crowded theater.
Don't you believe it's a good thing to discuss facts and findings about a pandemic which already infected a few million people around the world, and changed everyone's lives?
I mean,in the US alone covid already killed nearly 190k people from a pool of around 6200k infected. Doesn't this justify having informed evidence-based discussions?
A lot of people need to have control of their lives.
One manifestation of this is when they look at people that have bad things happening to them, they come up with a list of how they can avoid that thing happening to them.
Sometimes those things are very reasonable - I'll avoid these dangerous behaviors, I'll engage in these good behaviors, I'll avoid those areas, etc. But sometimes the threats are not the kind that you can really avoid. Sometimes people respond by blaming the afflicted with having poor intrinsic attributes, as opposed to their own superior attributes. Sometimes people respond by simply disbelieving the afflicted, discounting evidence that they would have considered otherwise. Because it is simply too taxing to really consider the risk.
I don't know you from Adam, I have no idea if that's what's motivating you, but what you said reminds me of what other people say in that situation.
It's interesting. I played a round of golf, on a golf cart, a day for a few days last week and by the end of the third day I was out of it. The other day I lugged an 80 pound window A/C up to my fourth floor walk up and it wiped me out for three days. But I can go for for a 5 mile walk and be pretty much fine.
Yes, a bunch of times. I was one of those people that kept testing positive for a few months after I got better. First tested positive in mid march, and then tested positive through May 1st at which point I just stopped doing it b/c everybody (read: doctors) thought I was fine. Finally tested negative mid July.
No
A normal amount? Probably a little more than normal? Like a turkey/ham sandwich or chicken caesar salad for lunch and then some entre for dinner? I'm not a vegetarian if that's what you're getting at
I don't think I've been "wiped out" as you say. So maybe this is more psychological or something different. Or if I ever had it, it might have affected me differently. Who knows!
The effect of lockdowns on mental health is undoubtedly large, however I would hazard against ruling a very large number of people with numerous studies & epidemiologists behind them as purely psychological.
Be careful with supplements containing fat-soluble compounds , of which Vitamin D is one. Vitamin D is a hormone. Careful!
Same goes for any metals.
Taking supplements occasionally shouldn't be harmful. A vitamin D supplement every once in a while should be ok, specially if you are locked up and not getting sufficient sunlight.
The key being "occasionally". However, if you routinely take them, please have a checkup done on the next opportunity you get. If you don't have any deficiencies, you shouldn't need supplementation.
Vitamin C should be fine. It is water-soluble, excess can be disposed of, if your kidneys are normal.
Also, get your blood work done regularly and do your annual checkups with your Doctor. There's no reason to guess that you might be vitamin deficient, you can just go check.
Most folks are deficient, and it is difficult, though not impossible to overdo it. Also, if you are living at 35+ degrees latitude, dark skinned, or ~50+ years old, you are deficient.
Your warnings to be careful are careful in the wrong direction, ie. dangerous.
I grew up in South Florida, and I'm surprised to hear people think the storm is getting bigger over time. I guess that's just something you grow up with knowing down there. People on the west coast tell me they're terrified of hurricanes, and I'm terrified of earthquakes. You can generally get out of the way of a hurricane if you feel you need to...
There are of course common sense things to do to be prepared: get bottled water, food, fill your bathtubs with water and a drop of bleach, make sure the car has a full tank of gas. We personally brought my grandparents down from Boca to stay with us. You can do those maybe a week, 4 days out before stores start to get really empty (grandparents can be moved earlier or later). If you have any coconuts palm trees, chop down your coconuts. These are common sense things to do if there's a remote possibility of a tropical storm or hurricane coming your way.
But I do think it's a little disingenuous to say that people didn't do enough to prepare if they lived on the west coast, given how quickly the path shifted. Partly because the NHC is generally so good at their predictions. If you saw the earlier map that had Irma going up east coast, and you were in Naples, you wouldn't think about moving, or at least I wouldn't. Our buildings, especially the newer ones, are built to withstand at least some level of wind. My house built in the 90s has held up through multiple Category 3s (Charlie and Wilma). It's of course all luck, and I know plenty of other houses that have had damage, parts of the roof torn off, shattered windows, though nothing catastrophic, built around the same time. I've driven through the outer bands of a tropical storm (not that you should, but I was in high school and we had a back to school party the night before, and I wanted the car to be home).
That's not to disparage the work of the NHC. They're great at what they do, and I read pretty much every advisory for every hurricane that's in the Atlantic. When you've got no place to go, a hurricane bearing down on you is a very scary thing. But if I'm in Naples, and 4 days out it looks like it's heading towards Ft. Lauderdale? I'm not making plans to move.
Thank you. I will say that we are relatively lucky in that we live inland, so we didn't have to worry about storm surge, in a newer suburb that had its power lines underground. We maybe lost 20 minutes of power during Wilma. I have family that lives in East Ft. Lauderdale, they were out of power for two weeks.
Wasn't alive for this one, but this was one that my parents got out of the way for. With the forecast shifting south every day, I have a sneaking feeling this could be another one they get out of the way for. The problem with Dorian is it looks like it's going to hit south, and then move up the state. Nowhere really to go.
The sabotaged info point could (would?) happen anyway. There's very little into securing the CAN, and that's how you get things like [1], even without V2V communication. There are a few papers out there describing similar attacks over bluetooth as well. I'd argue the security portion will become just as important as failure mode.
One of my shift keys doesn't work reliably. I'm just waiting for the day when the other key and the caps lock also go dark and I won't be able to log in to my computer.
I'd just like to see when they start doing personalized ads for every different person. I know TV companies have started to do more targeted ads [1] but if there's a company that can do it, it's gotta be google. If there's enough ad revenue to go around, it could be a tipping point where the local channel rules cease to matter.
I remember when Publix tried to do grocery delivery in 2003 and it failed. It makes me think the issue isn't with the technology on the web-side, or even in the route planning. The costs of having refrigerated trucks continually roaming the streets in such large, suburban areas just might not be feasible yet.
In lower-density areas, I think most supermarkets have found that online order + in-person pickup has been more successful, as a halfway solution that's much cheaper. A huge portion of their customers drive past one of their supermarkets on the way home from work anyway. Obviously this doesn't apply to people who don't drive to work in the first place, but about 90% of Americans do drive to work, so the numbers for that option are fairly favorable [1]. And in many zip codes the proportion approaches 100%. Walmart also recently rolled out an online-order / curbside pickup thing for groceries [2]. I'll be interested if any numbers emerge about how it's doing.
> This machine will keep pace with traffic. OK. Does that mean it will break speed limits?
If the highway speed limit is 55 and everybody is going 70, you'll make the road a more dangerous place by going 55. I don't know how it works from a legal standpoint, but from a practicality and safety standpoint, I'd rather go with the flow.
Exodus 21:22-23 recounts a story of two men who are fighting and injure a pregnant woman, resulting in her subsequent miscarriage. The verse explains that if the only harm done is the miscarriage, then the perpetrator must pay a fine. However, if the pregnant person is gravely injured, the penalty shall be a life for a life as in homicides.
Jesus was Jewish and fetuses aren't considered persons under Jewish law.