Anyone who believes this is good work and helping the world is deluded. It's full on race to the bottom, treat people like robots, surveillance state stuff.
What is the limit for monitoring? Is a GPS tracker too much? Video too much?
My wife is in healthcare and knows how to properly administer vaccine injections so that the kid gets thee best immune response. She has had to notify our clinic that their nurses are not proper administering the vaccine. How would someone audit this if it is not recorded?
We have also had doctors write notes stating they checked or discussed so and so issues, when it blatantly did not happen, so we have to send a message correcting them. I understand that the doctor is likely covering their ass from excessive liability, but they’re also concerns from the patient side that proper care is not being delivered and the patient will never know.
I am not intending to pick on healthcare, it is just the first example that came to mind for when I thought of instances where recorded evidence would benefit me. But it is interesting to think about changes in societal trust and perception of societal trust now that recording is so cheap. Surely, one would agree that recording a cop while on the job is necessary (for both cop and others), so what is the line that separates a delivery worker?
>Surely, one would agree that recording a cop while on the job is necessary (for both cop and others), so what is the line that separates a delivery worker?
are delivery workers regularly shooting or beating up people as part of their jobs and then saying it was necessary force?
Sure, but would one codify this if they wanted to make it law? The complexity of that is what I was trying to point out. And obviously, in its absence, we have deliver workers being recorded on the truck, because it’s simply so cheap now.
you do it on a law that says jobs that are involved with public safety are surveiled and otherwise not. I guess I don't see the complexity of this in comparison to other laws and regulations.
first of all in an American context the cleaning floors example would probably be laughed out of court as in no way being understood as Public safety, which would probably go with something like this https://www.austintexas.gov/blog/what-public-safety
>Legal scholars define public safety as “the protection of the general public,” and they reference groups like police officers and firefighters as Public Safety Officers. Many governments form their policies on this idea of protecting people’s physical welfare. They often focus on combating crime in an effort to help community members feel secure, and they hire for roles like law enforcement officers and medical emergency responders.
however I am getting the feeling you have never actually been involved in the writing of a law before
Defining public safety occupations would be pretty easy, although a lot of lawmakers in order to cut down on the misunderstandings might just go ahead and write a list of occupations that count as public safety if they did not want to let the courts decide. In a Napoleonic system I might expect the defining of public safety and it's meanings to take up a page or two of work, depending on how the makers wanted to define it (list of occupations affected, defining characteristics of occupations that would be affected)
> Surely, one would agree that recording a cop while on the job is necessary (for both cop and others), so what is the line that separates a delivery worker?
I don't know any delivery drivers who have state approval to use force and kill with little to no impunity. They also don't have billion dollar unions that will go up to bat for them when they do face liability for their actions.
One is one of the very few checks on power that exist, the other is used to punish workers for using the bathroom instead of peeing in bottles.
I am convinced that crypto/blockchains are slowly and pointlessly re-encountering the same problems that existing centralised systems and agencies were setup to solve.
It’s as if we are all disregarding the centuries of evolution that has gone into creating what we already have today. Systems that, whilst sometimes flawed, for the most part enable us to live our daily lives freely and easily. Systems that already have means of verifying people when you need to make an important transaction and that already allow for trust and stability. As the essay mentions making people the agents of their own verification with documents that you’d have to backup forever would be an absolute nightmare.
There is a reason we have centralised systems and there is a reason we can’t escape them.
My only question about nuclear is why is it okay to bury the nuclear waste?
I can understand that it might be fine to bury small amounts in specific stores but if countries slowly adopt nuclear energy at scale then over time won’t we be burying a lot of waste that, correct me if I’m wrong, has to be stored for thousands of years? I don’t understand how this can be sustainable long term. I also think it’s maybe arrogant of us to assume that it will always be safe to just store it and that something won’t happen that could disrupt that.
I’m no expert on this though so if someone has a great explanation I’d love to understand it.
I think it becomes palatable when compared to the alternative. Coal power puts out nuclear material into the air. I would rather see it buried in the stable locations picked so far.
All of the uranium used as fuel came from the ground. Now, we will be putting smaller quantity of other, also radioactive, materials into ground.
Lot of places have high natural levels of radiation[0], sometimes they even make it as a spa location[1].
People were living around radiation since before they were people. And they managed. We still do.
In the end the question is if we want some radioactive pollution that is easy to contain in the near term, or a lot more carbon pollution that is impossible to contain in the near term.
One is destroying the planet as we speak. The other might be a problem few centuries in the future, if there is one.
It's really not that simple. Enriching the raw materials and subjecting them to fission results in a waste product with quite different characteristics than the input.
Uranium 235 can decay by splitting into two smaller nuclei and releasing some free neutrons. Frequently those smaller nuclei are themselves radioactive. Uranium has a very long half life, on the order of billions of years, so the natural rate of decay is very low. This makes it relatively safe, since there is not too much radiation produced per second. Many of the product nuclei that can be formed have a much shorter half life. So they emit more radiation, though on the plus side they don't last as long. In nature, these smaller nuclei are still formed, but at a very low rate. In a nuclear reactor, the uranium is bombarded with a large number of neutrons, and it has a chance of splitting whenever a neutron hits it. So there's a high rate of decay, and as a result, once the fuel has been in the reactor for a while, it contains a large amount of those fission products. That's what makes the waste more dangerous: it has isotopes in it that decay faster and therefore emit more radiation per second than pure uranium.
You can hold natural uranium in your hand for a long time before it becomes a health concern. It's toxicity (heavy metal!) is more dangerous than its radioactivity. You shouldn't try the same with spent fuel or you will lose you arm quickly.
Thanks to everyone for your replies below, they provided me with some really useful insights and I understand that it's definitely less directly polluting than fossil fuels and that it's also part of an interim plan.
However. I still think humanity can do better.
If we put all the energy, resources and research that we are putting into nuclear into truly sustainable energy like wind, solar, wave and geothermal, which to my knowledge produce less or no byproducts, then that would be best.
It's unfortunate that the world can't take an aligned approach and build solar farms in deserts, wind farms at sea, wave energy on coastlines and then just export it all fairly to countries. I think I'm almost campaigning for energy as a global right and not for sale as a commodity.
Distribution is the most underrated, most difficult part of creating a tech company.
In the UK Squarespace peddles the slogan 'a website makes it real'. This is very misleading. Making the website is the easy part, being found if you have no prior audience, no experience with SEO or a lot of money for ads is incredibly hard. In my opinion breaking into the tech world now is much harder than it was 5 years ago regardless of how good your product is.
Totally agree with this. We'll just end up with more waffling long form content packed with videos and distractions to encourage users to spend more time trying to find what they were originally looking for.
Thanks, we have our interview Tuesday so I don't have time to make anything too fancy. I'd like to improve it a bit but it's probably best to get back to building what matters.
This is very cool. I’d also like to see a Linux version.
Also looking at their job spec for full stack developers and nice to see a company focused on server rendered html. No react, no graphQL, no JSON apis. Should be lightening fast and as a dev I like the fact they are choosing a stack that’s appropriate for their product (an ecom marketplace). I find that a lot of time is lost these days to fixing overly engineered stacks when the end user just wants to see a pretty simple, nicely designed HTML page at the end.
