Recent comments in /f/science

ba123blitz t1_jdjly2t wrote

In my other comment I specified Facebook and twitter and yes I follow my county, my counties sheriff, the accounts for each nearby town, accounts for my county and neighboring counties emergency management accounts and the local newspaper in the counties capital on both platforms.

For the emergency alert accounts I keep all post notifications on so I know as soon as something happens. Most common are the 3 levels for winter travel, level 3 meaning 90% of people have to stay home to keep roads clear for police,fire,ems, and snowplow/medical/electrical workers

When they make a post even if I don’t see it right away I can go to their account and view it much easier afterwards than trying to find something in last weeks paper.

I do realize the laws are old. That means they need updating, everyone lives in a digital age now and the fastest way to get info to people is through their smartphones.

Do we send out amber alerts to every phone in the area or do we put them in the paper?

1

nopropulsion t1_jdjk8eq wrote

I can't respond to your other comment, but your response to my question asking where they should post was "social media. "

Okay, which social media platform? Does an Instagram story suffice? What if you miss the story?

Do you follow your local municipality on social media? What about your water company?

You need to realize the laws were written a while ago. Despite that, public notice in a newspaper is better than a random Facebook post, because you are just as unlikely to see that as something in the paper.

People in the know about these things (professionals, activists, journalists) know to check local publications for this information.

2

nopropulsion t1_jdjigqq wrote

It is in the local public record. This is why it is good to have local strong media. If it someone is seriously polluting, it will get picked up. Just because you don't follow your local media, doesn't mean that others don't.

Where do you suggest they post it?

5

ncktckr t1_jdji853 wrote

You're focused on the wrong boogyman. We spend obscene amounts of money on military power and soft power, yes. It benefits some people outside the US, but it benefits us the most geopolitically. We should spend less, or at least not continually increase the amount, and put money into programs that help people, yes.

Isolationism and xenophobia aren't as nice as they sound to some on paper. They would not improve the condition of our country's people; in fact, they'd likely worsen many of America's ills… see Brexit as an example.

Instead of focusing on what political leaders want you to focus on—arbitrary large numbers you have no influence on or control over—maybe try understanding the world's bigger picture, the benefits and harms of an international economy, what chess pieces are on the board and why. Perhaps most importantly, focus on participating in your local government (city, county, state; not federal) to advocate for issues, or at least vote for like-minded leaders.

There are no quick fixes in such an extremely complex and interdependent system, unfortunately. Not ideal, but it is what it is.

2

GeoGeoGeoGeo OP t1_jdjgup0 wrote

The following is provided from the USGS:

>FICTION: You can prevent large earthquakes by making lots of small ones, or by “lubricating” the fault with water.

>Seismologists have observed that for every magnitude 6 earthquake there are about 10 of magnitude 5, 100 of magnitude 4, 1,000 of magnitude 3, and so forth as the events get smaller and smaller. This sounds like a lot of small earthquakes, but there are never enough small ones to eliminate the occasional large event. It would take 32 magnitude 5's, 1000 magnitude 4's, OR 32,000 magnitude 3's to equal the energy of one magnitude 6 event. So, even though we always record many more small events than large ones, there are far too few to eliminate the need for the occasional large earthquake.

>As for “lubricating” faults with water or some other substance, if anything, this would have the opposite effect. Injecting high-pressure fluids deep into the ground is known to be able to trigger earthquakes—to cause them to occur sooner than would have been the case without the injection. This would be a dangerous pursuit in any populated area, as one might trigger a damaging earthquake.

92

BeneficialElephant5 t1_jdjdkql wrote

Do you have a source for that? Genuinely curious just because neuroimaging studies have shown that starting medication at a young enough age can potentially reverse some of the structural and functional changes in the ADHD brain, effectively making it more like a non-ADHD brain,

So I wouldn't be surprised if early treatment reduces ADHD symptoms or need for treatment later in life, but I'd wonder whether that could be a result of the medication rather than behavioural modification.

1

dumpsterbaby2point0 t1_jdjcypc wrote

I’m a big supporter of ADHD meds (on vyvanse for 2 years now) but behavioural modifications and healthy coping skills learned in childhood could potentially eliminate the need for meds later on.

1

camisado84 t1_jdjch3m wrote

I am not trying to be antagonistic, but that's patently not true. If you get involved in local politics you would find out how disgustingly little is done to try to influence change.

I was involved with a local campaign that came within 1 or 2% of unseating an senatorial incumbent with a 80k budget, the opposition had 1M+ in the coffers and was in the seat for nearly 3 decades.

4

SlowMope t1_jdjbovz wrote

You can't quantify trust like that. It's more nuanced and it isn't healthy to view relationships with others as so hardline, it will harm your friends and family for no benefit and can result in a self fulfilling prophecy kind of thing. They can tell you don't trust them, so they can't trust you, so you can't trust them....

Additionally, you need a basic level of trust in society or you have driven straight to paranoia town.

8