Go to preciousplastic.com ... donate or fund them or refer a local organization of interest to help recycle.
Seriously. That (website) combined with personal responsiblilty (reusing water bottles as shared in other comments) would make a huge difference. Personal responsibility: When was the last time you (the reader) tossed a cigarette butt on the ground? ... threw something in the trash instead of taking it to a recycling bin? ...
This hits the front page the same day HN has an article about Russia being better at STEM outreach to young girls than the USA. If you're in the USA and want to promote STEM, go to your local school and fund construction of one of the Precious Plastic machines. It's probably the same cost as a student would have to fund raise for drama club or football team. Get Precious Plastic into schools, integrated with the shop/tech ed classes, involved with Home Ec (or whatever it's called now), and encourage [girls and boys] to be more interested, more involved, more creative.
We can solve more of these problems simultaneously with good solutions. Let's do it people!
While the literalistic nature of your reply is correct, the parent delivers a valid observation. Although it's true that a journalist may edit content to direct the reader towards a conclusion, the subject of the article certainly appears to have delivered a biased message on her own.
The tagline of the article isn't accurate:
> Vote.org wants to use your cell phone to radically increase voter turnout. Meet the woman behind the movement.
Four paragraphs in, the slant becomes clear and never abates:
> A cluster of votes could be the difference between Trump accepting a concession and a several-year blowout over the presidency.
I had hoped that at some point the article or this YC-sponsored founder would even tip their hat towards the appearance of equal representation, or nonpartisan ideals, but the closest they came was more of and admission of blatant bias:
> Long Distance Voter, like Vote.org, was technically nonpartisan. But many would argue that get-out-the-vote organizations inherently lean democratic, because the citizens most underrepresented in the voting process tend to be liberal.
So long as partisan efforts continue to pass themselves off as unbiased, the problems will continue to mount. If anyone out there really wants to make a difference in the electoral process of the United States of America, you must do so by truly serving the people, not your own interests.
F/d: Of course I have my own bias, but I'm a rampant supporter of neither party's candidate. I still haven't decided how to cast my vote, but I will be voting. You should too.
Well no, it isn't valid to call it a Super PAC. Especially given the availability of the word "partisan".
If we were just discovering that groups took sides a little bit of linguistic fuzziness would be acceptable. Not knowing what some jargon means and using it sloppily is just sloppy, again, especially in the face of a meaningful general term.
I did say I guess it would be more accurate to just assert that you believe they are partisan. in an attempt to make it clear that my comment was about the language.
As far as whether get out the vote is inherently a partisan activity, I think if you believe that voters skew differently than the general population, the test for partisan activity is that it skews in the other direction, not that it happens to skew less than the population of voters.
If it makes you feel better, I'm generally a crank. Here I am 6 months ago telling the founder of Vote.org that their tax status isn't an interesting defense of the activity:
Ah, I wasn't clear. I was citing the bias indicated by the parent, not the super PAC. You are correct in the definition.
My intent is not too harass you, but rather to encourage true public service to those out there with similar desires (increase voter turnout) willing to look past or work without blatant bias.
Apologies if I came across critical of your accurate statements.
> But many would argue that get-out-the-vote organizations inherently lean democratic, because the citizens most underrepresented in the voting process tend to be liberal.
I know you didn't pass that off as your opinion or conclusion, but I happen to agree. But for sake of argument, if we accept that premise, would it not follow that no republican would ever want to increase voter turnout, and anyone that would want to increase voter turnout, whether liberal or purely idealistic, would not really make a difference in their effort, because inherently it would drive up liberal votes?
I don't believe that the contrapositive statement you propose would be inherently true.
But whether it would be true or not, an individual (or organization) working to increase voter turnout without bias is something I would align with. The article references low voter turnout. If that's actually the problem they hope to address, then address that problem, without bias. (Insert note about racism/sexism/other discrimination here, and perhaps the argument becomes more convincing.)
Sure, I'm not arguing with you about them seeming biased. My point was rather; does their intent matter if their work is aimed at increasing voter turnout? If the result is the same regardless of bias, I mean.
I have no connection or experience with Kat walk [1], but it seems able to support a human (see video of sitting). That support might take care of your (rightful) concern for joint health.
Agreed, very cool. Could you share if there is a specific procedure for adding webgl background animations, of what OSes this is possible in? Mac/win/BSD/*nix?
Disagree. How about a simple "devices selling in excess of 500 units must have security devices updates provided for four years from the first date of sale"? Legislation doesn't have to be onerous.
Automobile manufacturers are required to produce parts for a certain number of years in support of their vehicles...
> How about a simple "devices selling in excess of 500 units must have security devices updates provided for four years from the first date of sale"? Legislation doesn't have to be onerous.
Even this is problematic, you still generate the a large incentive for the manufacturer to prevent reverse engineering of the device. If no one can find the exploits because the vulnerable firmware is not readable, the drivers are heavily obfuscated, etc, then they don't have to provide any updates and only dedicated actors with access to funds will have any chance at success.
In order to prevent this you may have to make the legislation _more_ onerous and require the manufacturer releases to the owners the ability to sign updates and reverse engineer the device. Something like this needs very careful consideration not to create perverse incentives and to maintain competition and pricing.
How frequently? What constitutes a security upgrade?
Who defines what types of bugs qualify?
Can I release an annual patch for 2 super-huge bugs (let's say kernel-level RCE) found in the 18-to-6 months prior to the patch release, and ignore data leakage bugs in that time frame as well as a kernel-RCE that was found only 3 months before my release and still remain compliant?
Realizing this touches several comments made already...
- What about pests? Will the fish control mosquito-larvae in the pool? ... and any other bugs that fall in? (Think southeastern US or other places where mosquitos can be a problem.)
- What about scavengers? Do the fish bed to be protected from raccoons out suburban/feral cats?
- Can you sell sub-kits? For example, I could use your source of kiddie pools and fish, but don't need to buy pex from you when there's a hardware store two miles away...
- What about erosion during times of hard precipitation? (Again, most places in the US do get some serious weather multiple times during the growing season.) Seeing my mature plants wash away would be rather frustrating.
I dig the idea, from one garden hacker to another, I just have a lot of questions ... and as I said: I'm not interested in a full kit, but a sub-kit with research would be really useful.
- In my experience, the fish do a very good job of eating any mosquito larvae and other insects that happen to fall into the pool.
- Depending on how you would want to set up the AutoMicroFarm, there would be plenty of hiding places for the fish. In my setup, I only see the fish come out of hiding when I feed them. But, if this is still a concern, you could add a simple net to deter predators.
- I thought about selling just certain parts, but that adds too much complexity. If you're serious about wanting just certain parts, email me and I'll help you out.
- We've had several hard rains and high winds, and I haven't seen any significant erosion... maybe a few grains of sand that got washed out, but that's it. The plant roots are really good about holding on to the sand. :)
If there are raccoons in your area, you really want netting over the pond.
The standard advice for preventing fish loss to raccoons without using netting is: the water must be at least three feet deep (any less than that, and the raccoons will hang from the edge by their hind legs and grab sleeping fish off the bottom) and you MUST NOT train your fish to surface near the edge of the pond (fish have trouble distinguishing the sound of human footsteps from the sound of raccoon footsteps). Any food should be thrown into the pond at least three feet away from the pond edge.
Naturally, that advice isn't very helpful for a pond six feet or less in diameter.
Out of curiousity, is this watermarking you speak of actual visual watermarking, or is it more stenographic like the techniques you mention. (If you may share in general terms, of course...)
