Was interested by this comment and wanted to note a few things. The Titan is significantly smaller (in terms of length ~1/10th the size although obviously displacement is the real measure)[1][2]. And the depth of the implosion is about 4x deeper[1][3]. So there are things that could definitely affect the sound signature.
Yes, and as far as I can tell it's not even certain that what was picked up from the San Juan was an implosion. But on the other hand, the Polar Prince was sitting right on top of the Titan listening for pings, and apparently it didn't hear anything.
I'm not suggesting anything nefarious, I'm just hoping someone who understands these things better than I do comes along.
The ocean is not a homogenous mass. As you go down you can measure temperature, pressure and salinity changes. These all individually and together affect the speed of sound in the water. Given the right circumstances a layer can form which bends the sound waves away from an observer. It is possible that they couldn’t hear the implosion precisely because they were on top of them. Perhaps they could have heard the implosion better if they were off to the side a few kilometers, or if they would have had a hydrophone dangling to the other side of the layer. More info on the layer. [1]
This perhaps also can explain why they routinely lost contact with the sub during dives. (And normalisation of deviance explains how they become okay with that. [2])
I'm speculating, but their ping detector may have had a filter for the frequency they were interested in. A low frequency explosion could easily have been ignored.
Q: Was a reason you choose a User installed application (Electron or Mobile App) vs SaaS to avoid having to store username/password for sites and the ToS issues that result from that? Or am I off base with previous comments in another Discord?
Meme Q: Were earlier versions of redact.dev so powerful they redacted the trip to Japan? :(
I follow on Twitter and have seen a lot about prisoner/immigrant advocacy (probably because of my Twitter bubble/liking habbits). But re-looking seems like a good mix of voting rights and medical access mixed in https://twitter.com/ACLU/
As the parent notes. The issue is if you have a simple law say "Do not dump harmful chemicals into waterways used for drinking, shipping, etc." this leads to a lot of litigation regarding what is a "harmful chemical". If instead you have it all spelled out "harmful chemicals being one of coal ash, hydrochloric acid, asbestos, ..." (don't quote me on these). Business's know what the variables/costs effecting operations are up front. Only reacting and being liable if the list changes through the political process.
The parent was saying the US approach instead define what a harmful chemical is after the fact. Leaving companies to need "insurance"/a cost benefit wager before something is built. Otherwise they could be screwed later after litigation.
IMO, I can see both sides but preferably I would want simpler laws from political processes which are then refined into explicit interpretations by subject matter expert strong government institutions. But we have lobbying/revolving door government employees and trashy textualists in the US so it doesn't work out that way...
A federal 3 letter agency unilaterally writes detailed regulations, that are for practical purposes law.
One problem is that the regulatory agency gets captured by the industry, which means the regulation ends up being a way for the established industries and companies to make competition unfeasible.
The regulatory capture conversation from the likes of pmarca is always about advocating reduction of regulation because otherwise the regulator starts working in favor of the big guys against the little guys. But to me that is the wrong way to look at regulatory capture. The antiregulation politicians are the ones that tend to put big business lobbyists in charge of regulation. We need good regulation, not less. Good regulation that evens the competitive playing field and protects exploitation of externalities. without regulation the bug guys lock in the rents with no space for competition. We need good regulation. But you don't vote for the antiregulation guy to get good regulation, he's trying to destroy regulation not improve it. Less government is a red herring, we need better government.
Thing is, good regulation is extremely tough. A good regulator needs to deeply, deeply understand the industry, where it has been, where it is going, and what the problems are; they need to deeply understand the spirit of existing laws rather than the letter of the law and be ready to thoughtfully and creatively deal with edge cases; they need to have some risk tolerance to allow for growth while still protecting people; they need to be able to balance the interests of competing groups; they need to be able to be proactive / innovate rapidly in the face of changing conditions meaning they need to understand the bleeding edge and be consulting with the groups at it; they need to see big problems like pandemics coming and push people in the right direction; they need to resist the calls for deregulation for deregulation's sake from industry as well as resist the calls for regulation for regulation's sake from politicians who want to appear like they're doing something about a problem; they need to deeply care about the users they are charged with protecting; Finally, they have to have brass balls. They have to be unafraid of standing up to politicians / the public / industry and saying you are wrong or sorry, we were wrong.
It's really tough to find lots of people who can do all that for not much money / acclaim potential.
I believe what you call pmarca's view is also the view of researchers in the field. The term "regulatory capture" comes out of the Public Choice branch of Economics.
> We need good regulation, not less
The result of the research is that that is, in general impossible. Sure, some regulators do good work for some period. But the general forces and incentives in play push quite strongly towards the regulator being captured.
The better working alternatives are laws, where disputes or guilt are decided by courts. Since there is no regulator to capture in this scenario, things work pretty well. Of course, lawmakers can also be captured, but that's harder.
One fascinating* thing with the field of economics is that so m any thinks their opinion is worth as much as the expertise of professional in the field.
You routinely hear people confidently claim the economics field is wrong about things they've studied for decades or centuries, because of simple arguments that are all thoroughly accounted for in the beginner literature.
Sorry but an argument from authority in the field of economics is not even a little bit convincing to me. Not only is economics a "social science", which are notorious for lack of rigour, but economics itself is purposefully bifurcated into biased partisan "schools". There are many economists which study solutions to regulatory capture who do not suggest that regulators should be cut, if you're only aware of one school of thought in this area then you've been looking in a limited bubble.
Not sure that is how the cookie crumbles, rather: it will be decided that chemical X is harmful at a certain dose, which leads to some permissible concentration Y of X, and that Y can then be used for regulation of disposing X.
A place that needs to dispose a certain volume of X with concentration >Y then pays a sort of a mixologist to dilute X to a concentration <=Y before dumping it all anyway (unless it would be less expensive and more practical to react X away).
You watch Lirik!?!? Come on man watch a R E A L streamer like GiantWaffle... People like you probably only have 908 friends on Facebook, like "wolf packs" and work for networking companies TriHard. Get on my level and call me :^)
rabboRubble To start off I understand your point that the Safety Check feature can be valuable. Japan's typhoon system is fantastic example you brought up where the entire population of a city needs to, after the incident, notate their safety. However, this is vastly different than the case being discussed of the London fire. In the London fire a small minority, ~500 people, results in a 6 miles notification (other comments said ~9 million people). As stated this kind of notification provides very little value. And instead provides negative value by switching peoples perceived safety ("I think my mother is safe sleeping currently") to a "required" opt-in safety check ("Well she hasn't said anything...so is she?").
This difference is my problem with the Safety Check system and, I believe, the authors. If there is an event where my safety is indeed in a majority questionable state (Typhoon takes out my town) then prompt me with a check #ThankYou. If there was an event which doesn't swing to a majority question then leave it to the individual case.
2 side notes:
1. Why do I personally take issue? Well, I was a student during the following: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Ohio_State_University_att... and felt "forced" to provide my answer to the Safety Check as I know my one crazy aunt would go loony if I didn't. In no way did the event warrant this switch from perceived safety to opt-in safety (it was 13 students hurt of >50,000).
2. As other commenters have noted "With great power, comes great responsibility!". If they're going to deploy this technology make sure it provides value and effects, changes safety to opt-in, for the smallest possible subset. Additionally, as you pointed out in your original post allow individuals to add themselves to the Safety Check list if you are getting spammed with messages.
Sorry for the long post but, like the author, I was very taken aback when I first encountered this feature on Facebook. While I understand the good intentions. Personally, it fell into the area of prompting a world where we need that instant knowledge, text back, response, etc. which frankly isn't that healthy...
Interesting comment from a different angle. I guess what set me greatly opposed to the author's article was "There is zero need for a Safety Check feature." quote near the end of the essay. I disagree with him entirely, and for the reasons I originally stated.
After reading all the comments my observations kicked off, your's actually caused me to think outside of my own set of experiences. I kinda see your point. That said, I still stand by my original position that FB's service fills a purpose at the Katrina / regional earthquake & tsunami level. However perhaps they need to work on the fine tuning. Personally glad I don't work in this area inside FB! They are going to be criticized for setting the threshold too high or too low regardless.
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARA_San_Juan_(S-42)
[2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Titan_submersible_incid...
[3] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titanic