WHOOOOOO

Currently that responsibility is with platforms unfortunately

Nice!

Someone didn’t actually read the article, dang op. You can do better.

It’s not that the power plant depended on the weather, but rather that the river life depended on not being boiled alive. Just like a coal or gas power plant, water is needed for cooling, which means the waste heats ends up in a nearby river.

But unlike coal or gas, nuclear doesn’t also produce a tonne of carbon dioxide. And oddly enough, a coal power plant would be more radioactive than a nuclear plant.

Welp, the conflict of interest was clear. I’ll have to watch this drama later tho

Not the best example in the us, perhaps. But you get the idea

Yes and no. They’re still humans. They should be held accountable, but they should also have the privacy to live their lives.

It’s not a simple black and white situation. There’s more nuance here

I suppose, either way it makes harassment and more misbehaviour more easily available

It would make it easier for these people to be harassed, or worse. Privacy is important

I think it’s more akin to a “get guns ez pz” article. Even if most people can get them, a lot of people don’t because it’s a hassle. But to be fair, if it’s public information then heck, it was only a matter of time until there was a website making it ez pz.

That’s not this article’s fault. And some important context I managed to miss at first :/

The concern was the lack of knowledge that this was public. I noticed it’s in the article, I may have read over it

A. A gun is a tool as well, doesn’t mean you should make them public available

B. That makes a lot of sense. I’m not from around there, sorry for the misunderstanding

Is this not doxxing? Posted by a mod no less

Not the most surprising result, stress isn’t great for your health. I did not expect as clear an impact as this

Same here in the Netherlands, sucks to be American I guess :p

Ye I expect so, I don’t like the way this author just doesn’t bother explaining her points. She just states that she disagrees and says they should be left to their own rules.

Which is probably fine, but that’s just lazy or she’s not mentioning the difference for another reason

She names Trump’s points explicitly, but doesn’t go beyond “the best practices of this and that institution”.

I can’t say they’re wrong, I expect a scientific institution to have some integrity to say the least. But either she’s too lazy to look them up, or she’s not quoting any for a different reason

If only there was some sort of governing organization that’s supposed to protect us from unfair labour practices and exploitation

Just going by this article I can’t quite tell whether either party has good intentions. Except for that the writer here does not

Roll you own “platinum standard” and see if he buys it :p