The rumours about some great number of foreigners pooping on the beach are generated to create resentment against a certain part of the population. They come from the same place as the "litter boxes in school washrooms" rumour from last summer. It isn't something that is actually happening.
That recent Wasaga Beach controversy didn't come as a surprise to me, since what was described there corresponded well enough with what I've heard from a number of other people in various places in Ontario, BC, and even other regions over the past eight to ten years.
What was described there is also not far off from the other unsanitary practices and obnoxious behaviour I've personally seen arise over that period of time.
Considering what I've heard and seen over the years, I don't have any reason to doubt those latest claims. They sound quite plausible.
And it showed that KN95s are NOT perfect at blocking COVID. This is why the general public now distrust scientists, because the media presents it to them inaccurately and tells them results the study never found. Science is about precision. The study did not find all N95s where nearly perfect at blocking covid, that's flat out inaccurate.
Also let's be really precise here. I'm not conflating anything and i think you don't realize you are.
1) KN95 and N95 use similar filter materials they both have to filter 95% of particles down to 3 microns, the difference is to do with certification N95 is a US certification and KN95 is a Chinese certification. So the material is essentially the same between them. The fits tend to be different.
2) What i'm getting at is the title said all N95s, that's not what the study found, it found that a specific fit style "duckbill" was "Nearly Perfect at Blocking COVID" the non duckbills did not.
So to be accurate what the study did NOT find which the title suggests is that all US certified masks that filter 95% of particles down to 3 microns were nearly perfect at blocking COVID.
Generally speaking, N95s fit better than KN95s, because earloops aren't allowed in the N95 standard, and headbands provide more tension so there's a better face seal. This study only evaluated one brand of N95, but there are many other people that have tested various respirators with generally the same conclusions.
They put a notice above the download link that said it was illegal to export to certain countries. Really. The onus was on the person downloading the software, not the person providing it.
I love Mazda for resisting the touchscreen-everything car interior. Everything in my 2021 CX-5 is physical buttons and knobs. The design and ergonomics are just fantastically nice and usable.
Like you said, the infotainment is also not a touchscreen and is rotary control only. While not as immediately intuitive as a touchscreen, once you get the hang of it it is much safer and more accurate to use while driving. Trying to use a touchscreen while moving is just awful.
And I don't think it is wise to optimize short term intuitiveness over long term safety and usability for a vehicle I will own for several years.
I have a 2016 Mazda and they had tactile controls then. What they did in 2019 was remove the touch screen feature on the center display, but there were always tactile controls to access the display. I have a 2022 Mazda and it's largely the same interface as the 2016 controls.
I work in the trucking industry. There are many private companies that provide full employment history checks, criminal background, driving record, drug and alcohol testing history, etc. Two off the top of my head are Asurint and HireRight.
Google devices function the same way when configured properly. The mention of multiple devices responding, and some not knowing about the light, makes me think GP has something set up incorrectly.
Have you considered that, especially immediately after the election, one side of the political spectrum was propagating much more misinformation than the other?
Yes, considering that it's the entire thesis of the study and how they try to claim there's no ideological bias.
Do I really have to explain why this is ridiculous on HN? No censorship regime has ever said "we are censoring this because we're ideologically opposed to it". There are always other justifications, often paper thin but they exist. A common excuse is that anyone making the government look bad is "spreading rumours", for example (China uses this one a lot). In the west, it's that exactly the same except they use the word misinformation rather than rumours.
The study in question is nonsensical - like all other such studies - because it claims that people are getting banned for spreading "misinformation" and not being conservative, but doesn't have any rigorous definition of what misinformation is. Instead they asked a bunch of self-proclaimed "fact checkers" (i.e. the people tasked with enforcement of ideological orthodoxy), and as a backup measure picked QAnon and said, that's misinformation (all of it).
Is QAnon misinformation? Yes, it is. Nonetheless it's obviously not a complete definition of the problem. I'm not American but I recall very well that after Trump won that for years there was a massive, organized misinformation campaign claiming that Trump was a secret Russian agent. If they'd included that particular conspiracy theory into their definition they'd have found that there were lots of Democrats spreading misinformation too, but they didn't, because that would have defeated their goal (the production of ideological propaganda useful for political talking points like the one you just raised).
If you're going to try and claim your political opponents are generically less honest than you are in politics, that's one thing. But when people who claim to be scientists do it, and they use the exact same tactics, that just degrades science. It's not actual research of the sort that arises from some coherent theory of the world and which can be neutrally tested. It's simply "how can we prove that Republicans are evil today?".
