I believe that we should expect responsible behavior from adults. Only this way a society can also develop responsibility. By prohibiting everything that is dangerous (or just considered as such) humans never actually get a chance to grow up.
It's sort of a balancing act between building safety rails so that people don't accidentally fall off cliffs while hiking while also allowing people the agency to free climb El Cap if they so choose...
You totally make a valid point. But I would literally remove all those safety rails. People just have to keep a safe distance from the edge of the cliff.
Isn't it likely that the rails were put in place as a response to people not keeping a safe distance from the edge of the cliff?
I often see this assumption that regulations appear from thin air as a way to keep people down. It seems more possible that they primarily come as a result of witnessing the reality of what happens with no regulations.
I think the prevalent assumption on HN is that every regulation can be traced back to some accident or mistake.
It is impossible to put safety rails everywhere (both literally and metaphorically). Some people will try to make selfies on the edge and fall to their death - very tragic - but why do I have to keep those people alive with my tax payments or even be annoyed from the sight of a rail in the middle of nature.
I also think that most accidents happen from overtrusting a safety gear - safety rails would sometimes fail. Typical example is the safety belt in cars - people suddenly drove faster. Or with helmets - rugby is less physically harmful than American football due to less protection. The examples refer to the mindset, though - of course I use safety belts but I also don't get too close to the edge of a cliff.
==I think the prevalent assumption on HN is that every regulation can be traced back to some accident or mistake.==
My experience on HN is quite the opposite, but that is besides the point.
==why do I have to keep those people alive with my tax payments or even be annoyed from the sight of a rail in the middle of nature.==
This is libertarian ideology in the real-world. Your argument is that your annoyance is as valuable or more valuable than someone else's potential death. In a civilized/democratic society, we have created a governmental system to make these decisions for us and to the betterment of the country at large, not just you. Stop lights are a regulation and annoyance to my car driving, if I stopped heeding them, do you think that makes society better or worse off?
==I also think that most accidents happen from overtrusting a safety gear==
Based on what? Do you have any evidence or just your personal observation/assumption?
It seems like you've lost the forest from the trees here. Specifically on safety belts, they save many more lives than they could ever cost as evidenced by empirical research:
==Seat belts dramatically reduce risk of death and serious injury. Among drivers and front-seat passengers, seat belts reduce the risk of death by 45%, and cut the risk of serious injury by 50%.==
Well, I am not a Libertarian. I am for regulation in many cases. The difference between a safety rail and traffic lights are this. When I approach an intersection then my health depends more the prudence of the car's driver also approaching the intersection and crossing my path. So putting traffic lights people at least know who can drive and who should stop. But a cliff is an obvious threat. There is nothing insidious about it. If that cliff would be close to an elementary school - then I would be for safety rails, though. Because children are not responsible and hence have to be protected from them self.
Regarding safety belts - I think you didn't get my point. I didn't say they aren't saving lives. I said that back when they didn't exist people drove more careful. With all those protection in place in cars - many people drive more reckless having those protections in mind.
But there are also other people around and animals and high wind speeds and any number of other factors that impact safety. I bet you still follow stop lights when nobody is coming the other way.
==Because children are not responsible and hence have to be protected from them self.==
This is an argument for putting rails on cliffs, as children are not barred from cliffs. Seems like you have talked yourself into a pretzel.
==I said that back when they didn't exist people drove more careful. With all those protection in place in cars - many people drive more reckless having those protections in mind. ==
I get the point, people may drive more recklessly because they feel protected by the seatbelt. I would say that all regulations are a cost-benefit equation. In the case of seatbelts, the benefit of more people living is larger than the cost of lost freedom.
Portugal's decriminalization is not the same as legalization; it could itself be viewed as "doing better". I personally am for legalization, but in terms of reducing consumption, it might be more effective.
I think it could be safely assumed that vaporizing nicotine and propylene glycol would lead to some negative health implications. Still, great job by the researchers in building precident.
That being said, I'm personally curious above the health implications of dry herb being vaporized at a controlled temperature, that prevents any combustion, and controls the release of carcinogenic materials like Benzene/ammonia.(produced at around 400 degrees by marijuana vaporization)
Think of a scenario like this: what if one uses a Volcano Vaporizer with dry herb (marijuana). What are the negative health implications there at certain, controlled temperatures? What about the beneficial implications? Do they cancel out?
Or are the negative health implications on par with the sensationalized articles about eating cured meat giving you a whopping 2% overall increased risk of cancer? Basically, I'm very curious if there is a way to drastically reduce the risk of vaporizing with the controlled vaping of dry herbs vs. these e-liquids containing nicotine/other nasty things.
With marijuana cartridges, I have been wondering what kind of temperature something like a 1100mAh c-cell battery maxes out at; because they can get hot.
I use mmj for an autoimmune disease, so it feels pretty ironic to read vaping damages immune system cells; will have to go back to the Volcano.
> I use mmj for an autoimmune disease, so it feels pretty ironic to read vaping damages immune system cells; will have to go back to the Volcano.
Pure MMJ extracts are a different beast. This is almost definitely related to PG/VG base used in electronic cigarettes. PG is used to kill airborne bacteria in hospitals for instance.
If a decentralized cryptocurrency platform could properly scale
in the future, likely with a stable cryptocurrency for currency usage, then this scenario will become a thing of the past.
Currently? Correct, hence I'm referring to a network properly scaling in the future. Ethereum currently has difficulties processing a image-based cat game, nevermind actual transactions.
Calling on the phone to reserve a table is not a meaningful or valuable human interaction to me. I doubt it is for the person whose job it is to take that call.
I'm pretty much the same way, but found it helps if you make it a goal to get the other person to break out of the script during the call. Say something silly, ask them how their day is going, ask them how busy they are today, if they get tired of calls like these, etc etc.
Answering the phone is often not the person's primary job; it may even be a distraction.
Even if a person's job is entirely replaced by a machine, the historical economic impact of automation has not been a reduction in employment nor an increase in inequality as the luddites feared.
Ah, just what I paid for as a taxpayer! Instead of having something freely available as a public good, the government can use it to generate a paltry amount of revenue....woo?
Agreed, it's getting absurd. Practically every post from an official cryptocurrency team's Twitter account gets numerous replies from an account designed to look just like the official account.
Typically, they post a poster stating that there is an Ethereum giveaway, and to enter: one simply needs to give a small amount of Ethereum to the wallet address in the poster. This is supposedly to have the wallet address made known to the "staff" and in turn: the user will receive several times more Ethereum back.
It's clearly still roping in people and is highly prevelant. I'm shocked that Twitter's staff hasn't taken much evasive action. These spam/scam accounts keep springing up left, and right with no end in sight.
It is actually quite sophisticated, the wallets I looked at even simulated the transactions that are sent back with 10* the original amount (to other wallets owned by the scammers).
Some of these scammers are using other wallets they own to send money to themselves to make it appear more "legit" to unsuspecting people. It's pretty terrible that as soon as a scam wallet is identified, another one just pops right up.
This is why Vitalik changed his name to "Vitaliak "Not Giving Away ETH" Buterin".
I'm ashamed to admit the first one of these I saw ('Musk' celebrating a launch last year) I was totally credulous of and forwarded it on to a couple of ETH-owning friends who quickly put me in my place (..and subsequently disavowed friendship :)..). I spent the next 24 hours on ETH-tracking sites watching as these bastards raked in nearly $80,000, from that one scam alone.
In my defence, I don't use Twitter much, and I mistook the value of ETH 'Musk' was asking for at around $20 rather than $200+ - had it been my own money, I would've been far more eagle-eyed and cautious.
Still, I was amazed/horrified at the gall and success of these people.
I never cease to be surprised at how unremorsefully sociopathic some people can be when it comes to getting their hands on other people's money.
Hi rococode, what are you viewing the site on? I'm curious if you're experiencing this is on something that's a bit out of the ordinary in terms of setup and whatnot. Regardless, I'm curious if we can do something.
You see, the font is indeed larger than other sites out there as NefLabs.com is designed in accordance with DOJ Section §508 best practices for the visually impaired. You can find additional information on this in the full Privacy Policy (https://neflabs.com/privacy/)
But, I don't think it should be as jarring as what you're describing. So, once again, I'm curious...
Linux Chrome 65.0.3315.3. Resolution 2560x1440. Looks like it just gets bigger the larger the view width `font-size: 1.7vw;` Probably want to constrain that. See https://i.imgur.com/erOZkOT.png
Hey there, much appreciate the info/specs, and screenshot.
The site was designed using vw-sized fonts to maintain the same user experience no matter their resolution. But for really large monitors/resolutions, it can be jarring when users expect to see tiny fonts and need to scale them up. That said, we will add some CSS for larger monitors to address this, but it's a hack, as vw-width is true to the original design.
Steve, I'm no kind of expert on how to deliver web pages.
But you're being a bit obtuse. Several people here have complained about the typeface being huge and they're right. On my browser (Firefox Windows desktop), it's huge, like 45 or 50 points. And I couldn't reduce it by changing the zoom using the control-scroll wheel.
It was so annoying that I just closed the window. If you are interested in getting your message across to me personally, you're going to have to do it without forcing me to read it in fifty-point type.
I think the real issue here is that zooming does not fix it. I can understand most people don't test every screen size (although we test loads) and would be happy to zoom out for some pages. What I ended up doing was using dev tools to switch to a normal size which was kinda annoying.
Hey guys, apologies for taking a bit: we've been hard at work! Speaking of which, we made some modifications to our site. How does the display look now on your ends?
Portugal's decriminalization of all drugs has led to a sharp drop across the board in drug usage and an increase in effective rehabilitative outcomes.