Twofold response:

1. It was not directly part of my claim, but yes releasing "toxins" as a binary concept has to be okay because the world, nature and ourselves naturally releases toxins. Irresponsible, excessive or unnecessary release is what matters.

2. In the airline case, it is not the airline releasing anything. It is cosmic rays and solar flares, which you went closer to. The airline should give a heads up in case this information evaded you, but it's the sun you'd need to sue. You'll have to get in line behind all the skin cancer lawsuits it's dealing with though.

A beach body guard has a massively increased risk of skin cancer compared to an office worker. You can, at most, ask for a shade for your watch tower or complimentary sunscreen.

Even for coal and oil powerplants for example, the right thing to focus on is getting rid of it, not extracting ongoing damages. Wind, nuclear, sun.

For flying, in either come up with a viable way and of radiation shielding passenger planes so it can be pushed for policy, or don't fly. Also don't go to very high altitude locations also carry increased risk.

As for contamination zones, that's specifically something the one to blame will have to keep paying to manage and clean up. Their fault, their bill. But even with all that it still ends up being what takes the fewest lives, due to just how much work for society that one plant did vs. any alternative.

First point is that even though radiation can cause cancer, radiation is part of life. If my basement has higher levels of radon, who should compensate me? What about the radiation exposure from requested x-rays, or food?

Second is responsibility. If I decide to fly a lot, my increased radiation exposure is not the fault if the airline. It's not their fault that the atmosphere is less protective up there, and everyone flying is equally exposed. Now if they could prevent the radiation they preferably should, but until then their responsibility is disclosure of this information to allow informed decisions. Can't blame the ocean for being wet.

Third is that by that logic, it very much has bearing whether "wind turbines kill people", as it implies that every fractional possible cause of harm must all be measured and pay in proportion to their possibility of damage.

There would be no way to even start. However, I do agree that when accidents or negligence/malice is involved, it makes sense that the actor spends energy cleaning up. For example, the biological harm to people in Fukushima was practically non-existent, but the short-term the economic and social harm was there and was entirely avoidable. Damages should be paid.

(Of course, windmills don't kill people, point is that wind, nuclear and solar is so harmless that the only thing we're looking at is differences in construction-related workplace accidents, which are a bit higher with windmills and lower with solar.)

It seems absolutely silly, but even wind power kills more people per TWh produced than nuclear due to workplace accidents in installation/maintenance.

Also not sure why lung cancer from oil/coal air pollution would be less visible than hypothetical radiation-induced cancers.

EDIT: Source: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/death-rates-from-energy-p..., accidents include indirect deaths. Solar is the only energy source that beats nuclear in safety.

For comparison, the surface exposed by your browser rendering this text controlled entirely by an adversary (me) is considerably greater as it also interacts with the style system, content reflow, javascript engine (even for non-javascript websites), etc.

The risk is far, far lower than browsing the internet. Unlike the massive surface of a browser and all the libraries and processes it is comprised of, the OpenSSH client is a tiny, with a singular purpose, contained in a small and very well-vetted codebase.

From the perspective of connecting to a foreign network service, the OpenSSH client is about the safest thing you can possibly use. Note the use of relative words here - not claiming it is 100% bug-free.

(The main caveat is that you can manually configure the client to do unsafe things, like writing a configuration by hand that enables X forwarding or agent forwarding by default for any host - but you can also actively disable sandboxing in your web browser or run everything as root, and we will never be able to stop you from actively making things insecure.)

However, batteries cannot cost $1 unless you want $1 worth of battery. Modern batteries are genuinely complex devices with extremely tight assembly tolerances, and something like a phone battery should be expected to be more like 10-40 USD.

Cheapo cells exist, but they genuinely have issues like poor assembly tolerances introducing risks of it deciding to spontaneously transform into a pocket-sized smoke machine.

The original designs did not reference this though, so it seems more like them adopting an observed behavior as a feature - so the statement that it was originally designed to be that way is indeed off, but the company did adopt the behavior in official paperwork.

The Philips screwdriver has lobes with a large multi-stage taper that ejects the screwdriver from the screw upon torque. The JIS screwdriver lobes are in contrast almost perfect 90 degree angle with a tiny filet in the center - not dissimilar to the Frearson screw.

A Philips screwdriver will be unable to insert all the way into a JIS screw due to this taper, exactly similar to how the extra lobes on a Pozidriv screwdriver collides a Philips screw. Attempting to apply torque with this partial engagement puts you at very high risk of stripping the screw.

A JIS screwdriver however does work perfectly fine in Philips screws, often even better than the Philips screwdriver as you did away with one half of the "screwdriver ejection feature".

There's a reason that iFixit goes out of their way to make both JIS and Philips bits, and warn you in their guides. They aren't really in the business of trying to cram more bits down your throat for fun.

I imagine the various products had their specific own conflicts with the rules, like requiring too much disassembly (the Pro controller in particular has to be disassembled from the front first), or the Switch 2 holding the battery with double-sided tape. Not to mention that you might not realize that the screw are JIS spec, stripping them with the Philips screwdriver you found in your drawer. Also triwing.

The redesign is because the ease of accessing the batteries did not comply with the new rules. The pro controller in particular requires almost complete disassembly to get to the module, and the Switch 2's battery uses double-sided adhesive which is finicky. Joycons can also be a bit finicky to navigate for the uninitiated.

Also, as the device is Japanese, it uses JIS screws rather than Philips (in addition to triwing), which could surprise some. These are superior for service - Philips screws are specifically designed to strip during assembly to prevent over-torquing - but they do require you to have the right, "exotic" screwdriver. As JIS screwdrivers are compatible with and superior in bite even for Philips screws, it's a good habit to just always use those instead for electronics. iFixit kits and such include them.

Indeed, there is some noise from backup generators when tested (or in use), but with a bit of preparation, good palcement and sequential testing you can make that not too disturbing.

1. Build your datacenter near supply. If there were consequences to ignoring the rules or being a bad neighbor with municipality, state or federal government baring their teeth, more optimal locations with regards to supply and noise would also end up being the cheapest and safest location for them.

2. Build supply near your datacenter. Solar and wind are both very cheap right now, but requires buying more land, same for a proper gas power plant in its own building with appropriate noise and pollution treatment.

3. Make investment into infrastructure a prerequisite for the project instead of just complaining about it and making into an excuse for cutting corners.

Even if you need to have local supply, "mobile gas turbines left on trailers to pretend they're not permanently installed to avoid having to get permits" is never a necessity.

Datacenters do not have to be noisy. Datacenters do not have to cheap out on cooling solutions. Datacenters do not need to be powered by mobile gas turbines left on trailers to pretend they're not permanently installed to avoid having to get permits.

Those corners being cut is not what make AI datacenters possible or competitive. That race is purely chip supply.

For reference, I work in an industrial neighborhood where there are quite a few new datacenters from big providers. The buildings are ugly for sure, but unless you're staring at it you'd have no idea it was there. I could try to pay more attention to see if I can hear it if I focus on it, but I suspect the sound of nearby rustling leaves will be too deafening to make out anything.

What are important rooms?

> Most people have there phone on silent/vibration anyway and recently everybody uses noise-canceling headphones outside to not be bothered by other people...

> Everybody is handicapped part of the time

A phone on silent still blasts public safety warnings at full volume. A phone on vibrate can still be heard. Noise-cancelling headphones still let the outside through at a lower volume.

Very different scenario.

The idea of it being genuinely difficult for a person to be warned or notified is terrifying. Put your phone in your bag and you might as well have left it at home. Honking, people yelling or screaming for you to move out of harms way, even air sirens... You'll have no idea.

Let's try a small thought experiment: Some birth defects stem from dietary issues in the mother during pregnancy, like folic acid deficiency or alcohol consumption.

Let's imagine that we discover that deaf children are primarily caused by a particular vitamin deficiency during pregnancy. We can then either spread the information so parents can supplement, or even fortify foods and cause the community to massively decline or even disappear - or we could withold the information on the vitamins to artificially maintain the population of the deaf community.

You could even extend it to a scenario where we end up relying more and more on artificial insemination or other early processing - the impact of many dietary deficiencies happen extremely early, so to maintain the community we would then have to artificially cause said deficiency to maintain the population of the deaf community.

Heck, we can always just make people deaf later if you wanted to maintain their community. We could also make more people get into "accidents" so that the quadriplegic community is maintained. Sounds absolutely insane when you start to discuss maintaining the population of disabled communities, doesn't it?

Back to the topic, cleansing of the deaf in this context implies a hatred for deaf people in general and wanting to remove all deaf people, which is an emotion entirely unrelated to sympethesizing with the disability of being deaf and wanting to avoid causing more such disability.

Granted, someone who already wishes for or aligns with the idea of ethnic cleansing might start by only publicly sharing their wish for the former to begin with, but I don't see a sensible argument for it being a natural extension of the former.