Ebby

1 in 75? That math seems pretty off.

40,000 fatalities would be a sample size of 3 million. The USA is 335 million, 110x larger.

1 in 8,250 is more like it.

Ha, I get it. Lots of stuff here is posted super seriously. It’s easy to incite this community where it spills over into others.

I suppose the joke part of this didn’t sink in. I refer to my earlier comment about lack of coffee. :)

Name calling… Check Unsubstantiated claims… Check Fake quotes… Check Rampant escalation of violence… Check

Yup, quality post we got here guys. I haven’t even had a cup of coffee yet.

First of all, the ISP controls cable modem firmware. They have all the settings and manage the device. You don’t get much control there.

As for your question, I’d say no, for 2 reasons. First, designing that capability is expensive and modems are built for cheap reliability. Second, any hardware to spy is more useful installed in a data center accessible to their user base. There is not much point installing unnecessary tech to one endpoint.

As for router, they are beefier CPU-wise. AT&T has in the past prevented users from changing DNS settings and that could lead to lots of tasty data. Deep packet inspection is becoming more prevalent in home routers as is integration with other technologies. (EERO devices for example).

Make sure to fire up a VPN or something when you need.

James May of Top Gear fame actually went into this in an episode of “Cars of the People” season 2 episode 1. Basically, he claims it was actually World War II that set things on that course. Pretty enlightening episode IMHO. Worth a watch for a history lesson.

Haha guess so. Misleading graphic taken out of context. That makes more sense. I never tried the excessive water method. It sounded interesting, but I refer to my point #1 above.

Yeah, took me a while to get through that paper. Pretty detailed, but a little red flag kept waving when all the results are percentages. I finally got down to the meat of the science and was pretty confused on actual levels. I still don’t have a good grasp of exactly how much iAs they measured, as the findings are adjusted for relative exposure by body weight. I suppose that’s the point of the paper, but would have been nice to have some relatable baseline to put things in perspective.

There is also a pretty large margin of error as a exposure 2.75x greater than used to calculate the results was within the same exposure limits linked to the 0.1% risk. That’s easy to add to their charts. Would have been nice.

Wow, lot to unpack here.

1. “Ain’t nobody got time for that.”

2. How much arsenic are we talking about here?

3. “Saving time, water, and energy” is apparently short for boil water, stand around, drain, re-boil more water using more energy, and finish cooking rice. Where is all this time saving happening?

4. “The margin of exposure [to arsenic] is increased to desired levels”. Hmmm I guess if you really think about it that is a true statement, but one heck of a roundabout way to say it.

You have speed, cost, and safety to contend with.

Cars are faster (direct to destination), cheaper for some trips (even including maintenance), and about equal in safety; more accidents, but much fewer muggings.

So, want to boost public transit? Start beating cars in those categories.

• Speed - Making roads suck in order to prioritize public transit is a low blow and not giving this cause credibility. It’s stirred up a ton of animosity. Cities have adopted a “can’t win so let’s be a dick” strategy. But where this can beat cars is high speed rail. As a car guy, I really look forward to that! Whoa, I know.

• Cost - Make it all free. Seriously, it’s public infrastructure. Pay for it with taxes. Our county already spends $150+ million a year making streets suck for a miniscule minority. Dump that crap into busses and light rail and we got ourselves a functioning town. Hell, the Bay Area already earmarked $1.4 TRILLION with a T for the next 25 years.

• Safety - My female friends ALL have stories about public transport. They range from forced conversations, sexual comments, and even overhearing detaills of how the two men in the seat behind will attack her. Yeah, she drives everywhere now. Point is, safety has to be enforced and it hasn’t had a good track record here. Not to mention there is a huge public service campaign right now plastering busses with banners that say “Human trafficking happens here”.

facepalm

Yeah, that’s the message you want to send…

So public transport, pick 2 of 3 categories and do better than cars and you’ll attract riders. Oh, and stop being a jerk to everyone else pretty please with a cherry on top.

Oh knock off the drama. Like I’ve never ridden or own bikes. Advocating lights and safety equipment isn’t “trying to get bicyclists killed”. What backwards bizarro logic.

News flash, cars aren’t responsible for your safety; you are. Being proactive is the best advice.

But go ahead, you do you; wear that camo vest. Lmao.

Lights and reflectors are required at night. During the day, they are optional, but highly recommended.

The second part of your statement is patently false; a visible, predictable bicyclist is safest.

So do bikes. It’s just common sense safety for all when on the roads at dusk or night.

I use kimai. It’s gotten much more stable over the past couple years and there is a mobile app. (I think it’s a couple bucks now, but works pretty well)

It runs in docker so it’s pretty easy to set up.

I have one customer who is pretty nuts about bills and this is the only way to track all that nonsense.

Yeah, came here to say this too.

The title is false. That’s not what is happening.

That only makes sense if you don’t consider vehicle traffic, say a packet of information in this case, legitimate work.

Renewables dipped below $0 for us in California too this year. Fortunately for the utilities, those savings don’t get passed along to customers and I still paid $0.53 kW/h. /s

Lucky you.

Don’t take on all that guilt. There are things we can do to limit our data, but a lot, dare I say the majority, is scraped from sources beyond your control. You may have great practices and security, but others may not, and those weaknesses or business arrangements are vectors for breaches like these.

We’re all in the same boat here.

Yes, it’s short. And nowhere near enough data to predict long term trends.

But it’s also the same data (from Jan - March) the Welsh Government is using. We are arriving at 2 different conclusions based on how data is interpreted. That’s a problem. There are 2 very strong biases at play; one is asking for greater transparency.

Yes it quotes someone, perhaps with bias, making claims countering a special interest group, perhaps with bias, also making claims.

The conflict here is in the interpretation of data and the accusation of government sampling data to support a desired outcome.

The group protesting is asking for better explanation and data transparency: without which conclusions will always remain “subjective interpretations”.

As for reporter fact checking and verifying claims, I can only work with what is written. Dismiss the author and article in its entirety if you wish.

“Unfortunately, the data provided is incomplete making it impossible to compare like with like. However, what the data provided does highlight is an increase in deaths and serious injuries across all roads combined for the first six months of available data. In Q4 (Quarter 4) 2022/2023 there was an increase of six deaths and 26 serious injuries and in Q1 2023/24 there was no decrease in deaths and an increase of 10 serious injuries”

According to the article, there is perhaps an increase in injury numbers.