I went and enjoyed it a lot. The variety of the exhibitions was great (personally I loved the watercolor pen plotter) and the age of the exhibitors - both very young and old, was delightful.
I believe Google explicitly stated that they used data collected from Ingress (arguably a predecessor to Pokemon Go) at the time. It's the reason Niantic was founded. It's hard to take these complaints seriously.
Sounds like a great opportunity for a startup to fix!
In the country I live, there is a standard AML/KYC service that allows customers (banks, utilities) to easily perform ID verification in a few minutes.
I got no disclaimer after about 7 tries. "Botulism" is not mentioned, "safe" or "safety" is not mentioned, and this additional tip is included: "Be sure your container is completely sterilized to prevent the growth of bacteria."
What's interesting is thinking about what (if any) parallels of "PFOS" exist in the tech industry - collective delusions of products that aren't harmful. I would vote for most social media apps, maybe?
The article does a good job of addressing the nuance, but the headline and most attention grabbing parts of it don't.
Most of the new housing built may have been illegal under previous parking rules, but it doesn't logically follow that similar housing couldn't have been built without the parking rules change, just that it's cheaper to build without it.
The article/quotes acknowledge this,
> “It’s impossible, really, to tie a specific code change to changes in the market,” explained Brennan Staley, a strategic advisor for Seattle’s Office of Planning and Community Development. Other local regulations, housing prices, and international finance markets all play a part in the real estate market. Michael Hubner, who works on long range planning in Seattle, agreed: “It’s very difficult to point to a causal relationship.”
and also note that off street parking is still present in the majority of new housing
> In both cities, the majority of new buildings still included off-street parking voluntarily
> but it doesn't logically follow that similar housing couldn't have been built without the parking rules change, just that it's cheaper to build without it.
Yes, you can build anything with an infinite budget. In practice, budgets aren't infinite and increasing costs means fewer projects will get built.
> but it doesn't logically follow that similar housing couldn't have been built without the parking rules change, just that it's cheaper to build without it.
Cost is a very real and important constraint. You can't just throw more money at a problem if the problem is that you cannot profitably provide a good at a price that is affordable. You cannot change the price the market will bear, but you can cut your costs by lobbying your city government to cut parking minimums.
Given that the rocket blew up more or less at launch, it should be full of unspent fuel. How does one put out that fire? I'm guessing there's a lot of energy stored there, so letting it burn through doesn't seem wise.
I think the only thing to do at that point is contain wildfires ignited by the burning propellant. The other commenter's entirely right: it's not practical to stop a combustion reaction where the fuel and oxidizer are already mixed.
Here's a ground-level view from a similar solid-rocket failure, for some perspective:
I would disagree. Mathematicians certainly don't need to visualize everything but "intuition" is a commonly used phrase which is a notion of understanding.
Although math merely requires proving some statement, often having an intuition / understanding of how concepts interact with each other helps figure out which things are likely to be true.
