CDG shows yellow (“minor issues”), 65% of planes arrive on time, 0% cancelled. FRA shows green (“normal operations”) 59% of planes arrive on time, 4% cancelled.
> The motivation for making school more rewarding and less stultifying should not primarily be its effect on outcomes later in life, but rather that childhood is itself part of life, a very important part.
This is unworkable in practice; nothing will ever be completely safe. Instead, we need a public regulatory body that makes reasonable risk/reward tradeoffs when approving necessary chemicals. However, this system breaks down completely when you allow for lobbying and a revolving door between the public and private sectors.
“You know, the most amazing thing happened to me tonight. I was coming here, on the way to the lecture, and I came in through the parking lot. And you won’t believe what happened. I saw a car with the license plate ARW 357. Can you imagine? Of all the millions of license plates in the state, what was the chance that I would see that particular one tonight? Amazing!”
> “Our algorithm right now is provably faster, in theory,” Ahmadi said. He’s hopeful, he added, that in 10 to 20 years, it will also be so in practice.
Maybe I’m misunderstanding the article, but I find it baffling that they don’t mention the simple fact that the “best” professors have access to the “best” students. Especially early in career students. Never mind the fact that great schools -> employ great researchers -> enroll great students, even within one cohort this is clear. The top 5% of a class can do their undergraduate research everywhere they please and are in fact often scouted out by top chairs.
Agreed, the experience the author describes with a Honeycrisp at the beginning of the article is something I recently had with a Cosmic. Let’s hope it lasts.
The “everything is a chemical” ‘argument’ is an isolated demand for rigor imo. Everybody can reasonably squint their eyes, assuming good faith, and see that a compound created in a lab that has no nutritional value or is engineered to be overtly addictive (like high fructose corn sirup and what not) or any of the other million things we engineer every day to industrialize the food chain is what is meant by most people when they say “chemical”. And yes, many of these are bad for you, despite the (corporate funded) studies that say otherwise.
Which is wild because a Dyson has a premium price tag.