SecurelyObscure t1_j3h0b63 wrote

>Republicans were 1.8 times more likely to have their mail-in ballot canceled vs. dems.

We'd have to know the number of ballots that were cured, and therefore didn't count towards the number of cancelled votes, to see if party is a significant indicator. 4 of the six counties that outright refused to cure ballots lean heavily red.

Also need to normalize by demographics like age and educational attainment, which would impact the ability to follow the voting instructions.


SecurelyObscure t1_j1ok04z wrote

Just tearing down some drywall isn't likely to release much asbestos, even if it has it. They didn't put a lot in the boards or mud, it was the workers who were sanding the stuff for 8 hours a day that were in trouble.

Frankly I wouldn't have gotten the test done at all. For a low-asbestos product, it doesn't change how you deal with it (ventilation, don't grind or cut, breathing protection) and if it comes back positive, you're going to have to report that finding to anyone you sell the house to.

But yeah, it takes multiple decades to cause cancer, is almost always because of chronic exposure, and doesn't hurt children in particular like lead. So maybe take it easy on the guy.


SecurelyObscure t1_j1mieqf wrote

Many offices do have motion sensor lights and after-hours HVAC settings, though. Also remote controls/monitoring and modern high efficiency heat exchangers that are many times more efficient per cubic foot.

And when there are tens of thousands of households vs dozens of office buildings in a service area, it's absolutely the households that are consuming the vast majority of energy, so it makes sense to try and reduce the demand where it's greatest.

Both can be wasteful, but you're the one being willfully wasteful.


SecurelyObscure t1_j0b26mp wrote

Are you kidding? You think I'm bringing up my science degree as a dick measuring attempt?

>this is what happens when not enough people are science literate

This is what happens when not enough people are literate at all. Did they take the reading comprehension courses out of the engineering curriculums?


SecurelyObscure t1_j09gtnq wrote

I wasn't comparing the feasibility of fusion vs perpetual motion. I was using the wasted time and effort put into researching something to demonstrate why it's not a reasonable to compare r&d costs to the amount of money spent on obtaining a known energy source.

Billions are spent on all sorts of energy research. Solar, hydro, chemical, biological. The overwhelming majority will go nowhere. Some end up being outright scams, like perpetual motion devices. Picking one that might eventually work and saying "God we're dumb for not doing this instead of using oil" is like saying people are dumb for having bought stocks other than Amazon in the 90s.

Or are you going to tell me how actually stocks are a financial entity so it's not a fair comparison to energy.


SecurelyObscure t1_j08qmzx wrote

Yeah gravity works there, too, and people have spent countless hours trying to use it to make perpetual motion machines to create green energy. But we wouldn't be celebrating a graph of that.

I'm just pointing out the difference in spending money on procuring a known source of energy vs research on a potential one. They're really apples and oranges.