It’s a little different for guns, they’re more tightly controlled and there’s often paper trail of their purchase and licensing of owners, so your example doesn’t apply.
I think there’s also the issue that you’re more likely to be murdered by someone you know than a random person. At the very least, matching bullet marks from shots fired from his associates guns to any casings found at the scene is just due diligence.
The reality of guns in the US is that a gun linked to a crime is likely to be part of a cohort of guns with a "short life to crime" having bounced through obfuscating straw purchases.
The most rapidly increasing (although still small in absolute numbers) class of gun associated with crime today are the 3D-printed variations:
Thousands of guns are found at crime scenes. What do they tell us?
So, yes, if this a crime of passion, a dispute between aquaintainces that escalated badly then there's a good chance the gun used has a history of ownership and registration.
If this is a crime related to home invasion gone badly then it's more likely to be a gun that fell off the radar some time past.
Also make sure to put in your user password in a plaintext file in the repo for ease of automation. Add your SSN in case the usb gets lost. A face scan of a blank check could prove useful for future bills.
When I put my password in plaintext in git it shows up as ****. Can you try with yours and see if the same thing happens? Share the repo with me so I can check!
For some patients, sometimes. There is no part of this study that says that “positives are uncommon and negatives are common” to cannabis/cannabinoid use overall as the comment I was responding to said. You would have to only read “these are some negative effects some people have experienced” and not read anything else in the study to conclude “the authors of this study that repeatedly points out the efficacy of Nabiximols are trying to tell you that cannabinoids are Actually Bad And Not Good”
I just imagine the most hilarious form of this idea being a panel that lays behind the plate that is part of the car. The panel containing an array of IR leds that flood everything behind the car with invisible light. Imagine going out side, seeing nothing, but you pop open your phone's camera app and everything is illuminated for some reason. Would be wild.
Edit: I have no concept of what camera sensors are doing these days.
No, not that I can think of. The app comes pre-loaded with a bunch of templates you can insert. I mostly just started from the templates and substituted my own perl or python scripts for things.
Unusual severe one sided eye pain. Go to regular doctor's, explain, get told it's a "stye" and do hot compresses.
Problem gets worse, I go to urgent care. Urgent care doc takes one look at me and immediately sends me to the ER saying it's severe and she can't diagnose it because she is unqualified.
Go to ER, get seen by two specialists, a general practicioner and a gaggle of nurses. Get told it's a bad eye infection, put on strong steroids.
Problem gets worse (more slowly at least).
Schedule an urgent appoint with an opthalmologist. For some reason the scheduling lady just like, comprehends my urgency and gets me a same day appointment.
Opthalmologist does 5 minutes of exam, puts in some eye drops and pain is immediately gone. She puts me on a very serious steroid with instructions to dose hourly and visit her daily. Only reason I am seeing out of both eyes today.
As the top comment says, do not just "trust" Doctors. About 70% of hospital deaths are due to preventable mistakes in the hospital. People who are invested in their own care, who seek second opinions, who argue (productively) with their doctor have the best outcomes by far.
Nobody said not to work with doctors, but blindly trusting a single doctor will seriously harm your outcomes.
>About 70% of hospital deaths are due to preventable mistakes in the hospital.
It's awful that you had a bad experience, but no. Nowhere near 70% of hospital deaths are from preventable mistakes.
I would also note that in your experience, you ended up trusting a different doctor (ophthalmologist), not ChatGPT. Second opinions from other qualified professionals is a thumbs up from me.
I would add to your note, that the person that was correct in their care was the actual expert. Doctors are experts in their fields, but until they saw an ophthalmologist, they didn't see the right practitioner.
Just like I wouldn't go to my podiatrist to treat a complex case of rosecea, urgent care and GCP aren't for specialized, complex and rare cases.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK499956/ cites >200,000 from one estimate. Harvard Health throws out 700,000 deaths per year in hospitals total. ~0.28 according to my quick math.
I generally expect such counts to be under-representative. I'm also probably conflating cases of "this person was going to die regardless but the hospital screwed something up" with "this person was not going to die but did die because the hospital screwed up." It's not clear how any source would avoid that conflation though.
Do recognize, you're voluntarily participating in a highly moderated forum. If one were principled in their opposition to moderation, one would not voluntarily choose to use said forum for nearly a decade ;)
Part of what makes Hackernews enjoyable to read is the strong and very reasonable moderation. We aren't subject to walls of Viagra/Cialis ads or back-and-forth flamewars.
I'd argue it's because of content moderation that HN is an environment that generally promotes a marketplace of ideas.
> Part of what makes Hackernews enjoyable to read is the strong and very reasonable moderation.
I agree with the enjoyable part but "reasonable" would require careful examination of the things that didn't make the cut and is highly subjective. I have no idea what "strong" means.
Most moderation seems to get done by the voting system (powered by weak and very unreasonable users?)
What is missing is a user manual to formalize this social credit system. I never knew that I have to upvote the correct posts. I thought the system was curious about my opinion. Quite preposterous in hindsight. Ill make more of an effort, who knows, in a few years we might go full North Korea retroactively.
You'd also be excluding everybody who illegally has a firearm or knife or whatever the murder weapon is.
reply