SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Twitter owner Elon Musk requested a meeting with Federal Trade Commission Chair Lina Khan late last year, but he was rebuffed and told to stop dragging his heels on providing documents and depositions needed for the FTC investigation into Twitter's privacy and data practices, a New York Times report said yesterday.
"In a Jan. 27 letter declining the meeting, Ms. Khan told a Twitter lawyer to focus on complying with investigators' demands for information before she would consider meeting with Mr. Musk," the NYT wrote.
Twitter has to comply with conditions in a May 2022 settlement in which it agreed to pay a $150 million penalty for targeting ads at users with phone numbers and email addresses collected from those users when they enabled two-factor authentication. Last year's settlement was reached after the FTC said Twitter violated the terms of a 2011 settlement that prohibited the company from misrepresenting its privacy and security practices.
Related:
FTC Fines Twitter $150M for Using 2FA Info for Targeted Advertising (20220527)
Twitter Faces FTC Probe, Likely Fine Over Use of Phone Numbers for Ads (20200804)
(Score: 3, Insightful) by JoeMerchant on Tuesday April 04, @08:59PM (29 children)
So, I feel like, if we were actually serious about a manned mission to Mars, we'd be much more serious about the mock-up missions here on Earth. I mean, you wouldn't even need to put the "ship" out in the desert or anything, just build a sealed environment with the same volume and supplies as the actual Mars transit ship would have, stuff in the same number of crew members, hit them with the same environmental conditions (except for zero G, but you could do temperature, pressure, humidity, noise and vibration - or lack thereof), communication lags, and occupy your rats in the box with all the same tasks they would be required to perform for the duration.
Stage two could be endurance LEO of the same mission, but that's orders of magnitude more costly, so stage one could be happening now and for the next 11 years (one solar cycle, bonus points for informing the 'astronauts' how much radiation they missed by not flying the actual mission) - and the stage one missions would still be a fraction of the cost of a single LEO simulation for the two+ years required for a decent "there and back again" mission to Mars.
I know, a couple of these things have been done, but never what I would call "hard core" serious about simulating the duration and conditions of a real Mars mission.
After a decade or two of development, the costs and conditions to be expected in a "retirement tiny home on Mars" should be much better defined. And, again, for anybody who really wants to go, but can't afford the orbital transit, we could certainly set up underground bunkers with very similar conditions in some cheap terrestrial real-estate with semi-reliable solar power.
Україна досі не є частиною Росії Слава Україні🌻 https://news.stanford.edu/2023/02/17/will-russia-ukraine-war-end
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 04, @10:12PM (1 child)
As far as "retirement tiny home on Mars" goes, the major attraction would be lower gravity. You aren't going to get that in some bunker.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Tuesday April 04, @10:16PM
That would be the premium product for those who can afford the long rocket ride. Personally, I would much rather have a vacation time-share on LEO, which should be quite a bit more affordable.
Україна досі не є частиною Росії Слава Україні🌻 https://news.stanford.edu/2023/02/17/will-russia-ukraine-war-end
(Score: 3, Informative) by inertnet on Wednesday April 05, @08:27AM (26 children)
I read somewhere that radiation on Mars would be lethal in about a year, unless you stay mostly under the surface. In LEO we're still protected by Earth's magnetic field, but you'll get exposed to excessive radiation during the trip to Mars as well.
(Score: 2, Disagree) by khallow on Wednesday April 05, @11:22AM (25 children)
A couple sections above that, we have:
In other words, it is estimated that Ramsar, Iran gets a similar exposure to radiation as the bottom of Gale Crater where the Curiosity rover landed. Most of Mars is higher altitude, and atmospheric thickness does vary through the martian year due to changes in amount of frozen CO2 at the poles, but it is telling that humans on Earth already live in similar levels of radiation exposure without a notable consequence.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday April 05, @04:04PM (22 children)
>people are exposed up to 260 mSv/y for many generations, with no reported harmful effects
And most people who live (and die) in Ramsar, Iran have done so for many generations before studies of radiation effects were undertaken.
Humans can evolve to handle higher levels of radiation. In certain circumstances, radiation is "healthy" because it damages weak tissues (like cancer) faster than healthy tissues. But, generally speaking, living creatures evolve to exist in the environment they exist in, which your quotation says is: 6.2mSv per year, on Earth, on average, with many populations evolving in considerably lower exposures.
Thanks for the copied text, I didn't know that ground level radiation increases during solar minima: https://blogs.agu.org/geospace/2017/04/04/impending-weak-solar-activity-expose-aircrews-higher-radiation-levels/ [agu.org]
I did know, however, that airline pilots have increased incidence of disease from their increased levels of radiation exposure, and their exposure levels are considerably lower than the minimum levels on the Martian surface.
Україна досі не є частиною Росії Слава Україні🌻 https://news.stanford.edu/2023/02/17/will-russia-ukraine-war-end
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday April 05, @05:01PM (21 children)
Except for the significant minority of immigrants who did not. They would be numerous enough to show a medical effect, if there were one.
Radiation exposure or UV exposure? For example, here [alpa.org] shows only an increased incident of melanoma among a variety of cancers. A number of other cancers actually show a significantly lower rate than the general population!
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday April 05, @05:30PM (20 children)
You can cherry pick all kinds of studies, here's the first result from my Google search: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5559846/ [nih.gov]
>A number of other cancers actually show a significantly lower rate than the general population!
As I mentioned, radiation can be "good for you" particularly in killing off cancer cells, under certain circumstances.
>Radiation exposure or UV exposure?
Link I posted mentioned that cockpit windows have effectively filtered UV radiation for decades now. It also states an increase from 0.90 (95% CI 0.71 to 1.11) for all cancers to 2.42 (95% CI 1.50 to 3.92), and some seriously impressive top end numbers for melanomas.
What the scientists failed to mention / control for were rates of alcohol and tobacco consumption among pilots relative to the general population, nor exposure to global diseases - venereal and otherwise. Viruses cause cancer too...
Україна досі не є частиною Росії Слава Україні🌻 https://news.stanford.edu/2023/02/17/will-russia-ukraine-war-end
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday April 06, @09:20AM (19 children)
That completely demolishes your argument when we quote that segment in full. In other words, just like my study, most cancers show a slight reduction in incident with the notable exception of malignant melanoma. Maybe they need to filter UV more "effectively" than they do now?
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Thursday April 06, @10:00AM (18 children)
.90 to 2.42 is a significant increase, especially when there is no overlap in the
.95 CIs.
A huge increase in malignant melanoma doesn't put a smoking gun in the hand of UV radiation, melanoma can come from interstellar gamma as well (and myriad other causes.)
The broad CI for melanoma does point to other causes, and it's not hard to imagine that pasty white pilots flying to the tropics with beach layovers might get more UV than the control group, but none of that diminishes the more than doubling of all cancers significance.
Україна досі не є частиною Росії Слава Україні🌻 https://news.stanford.edu/2023/02/17/will-russia-ukraine-war-end
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday April 06, @02:24PM (17 children)
FTFY. Really.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Thursday April 06, @04:57PM (16 children)
Re-read, carefully. Or: novel thought, look at the linked article for clarification if you don't understand my (correct looking to me) syntax.
Україна досі не є частиною Росії Слава Україні🌻 https://news.stanford.edu/2023/02/17/will-russia-ukraine-war-end
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday April 06, @06:33PM (15 children)
For what? I read it carefully in the first place after all. And then reread it. You seem to be claiming that there's a significant increase in more cancers than malignant melanoma. Because why else bring up that research up? My point was that a careful reading of the linked research indicates it shows the same effect: pilots that have an abnormally high malignant melanoma incident and moderately lower in the other categories of cancer.
Which let us note doesn't mesh with the original claim that there was supposed to be evidence of higher incident of disease which suspiciously looked like pilots were getting it from higher radiation exposure. My take is that instead we're actually seeing modestly lower incident of cancer across the board excluding melanoma!
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Thursday April 06, @07:35PM (9 children)
>and moderately lower in the other categories of cancer.
In the universe where 2.42 is moderately lower than 0.90, sure - I would agree there.
>My take is that instead we're actually seeing modestly lower incident of cancer across the board excluding melanoma!
My take is: my grandfather died of malignant melanoma which manifested in his big toe, amputation didn't stop it - he died within 3 years after initial diagnosis.
Україна досі не є частиною Росії Слава Україні🌻 https://news.stanford.edu/2023/02/17/will-russia-ukraine-war-end
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday April 06, @09:39PM (8 children)
Ok, I found the part in question. Icelandic pilots whom have both the highest radiation exposures and very elevated levels of all cancer types. That's where the 2.42 part comes from.
I see something that further neutralizes my UV theory. The melanomas often manifest in tissue that is unlikely to be exposed to UV such as the trunk.
So I grant that this is likely due to cosmic radiation rather than other sorts of environmental factors and you are indeed right. Even so, there is a last observation. The study indicates that exposure before the age of 40 is significant:
So that still leaves the option of sending older people to Mars.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Thursday April 06, @10:07PM (7 children)
Deeper in the article they mentioned that atomic bomb blast exposure studies showed increased rates of later cancers up to age 40 but relatively little after, which they used as a reason to focus on under 40 pilots.
The problem with sending only over 40 people to a colony: who is going to do the work when they get there? Over 40 isn't completely incompetent for physical labor, but it's on its way, and over 70 starts requiring care that over 40s aren't great at giving.
Україна досі не є частиною Росії Слава Україні🌻 https://news.stanford.edu/2023/02/17/will-russia-ukraine-war-end
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday April 06, @10:24PM (6 children)
My take on that is if your over 40s are doing a lot of hard, manual labor in a high tech martian colony, then someone's doing it wrong. I'm not speaking of extreme automation, but relatively mundane labor saving devices and force multipliers. For example, you'll have to wear a space suit anyway. Might as well wear one that can safely lift 100 kg of weight (which is actually 300 kg of mass on Mars) and which an 80 year arthritic could easily use.
And really even for a colony, you'll need this only for a few years till enough radiation shielding has been built up for under 40s. Similarly, shield your spacecraft that transporting these people. I suppose it's rocket science of a sort, but not complicated. You might end up with a bunch of ancient people who can't survive a trip back to Earth, but that seems a small price to pay for starting a colony on another world.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Thursday April 06, @11:26PM (5 children)
Automation is, of course, great, but unless you have general purpose robots capable of basically everything humans can do, you are going to find a lot of maintenance and repair tasks that are just hard to fully anticipate and design for.
Exoskeletons look cool in the movies, and I have seen real life prototypes, what I haven't seen are big item delivery drivers, soldiers or any other mainstream manual laborers using them in actual work scenarios.
An infantry field kit typically weighs 100lbs and up... If exoskeletons were ready for prime time, I think they would show up there. As things are, I read recently that 77% of draft age Americans are unfit for military duty for at least one reason. Push that age to 40 and I'm sure the number gets worse.
Україна досі не є частиною Росії Слава Україні🌻 https://news.stanford.edu/2023/02/17/will-russia-ukraine-war-end
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday April 07, @12:55AM (4 children)
Well, that's something oldsters do today. For a weird example, my employer (who runs hotels in Yellowstone National Park) has some of their oldest staff in maintenance.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Friday April 07, @01:49AM (3 children)
My grandfather (who died at 76 of melanoma started in his toe) did vehicle maintenance for an agricultural research station until he was 65, but after 55 he slowed down a lot on things like ladders and roof work, digging holes for planting trees, and other stuff he used to do all the time.
However, I notice a trend in the next generation now entering their 70s: they hire a lot more work done and tended to get out of the physical stuff earlier. Maybe that will reverse when a less affluent wave ages out, but it seems to me that those stuck at home 30 somethings who can't get work today are already even more helpless than our aged boomers.
Україна досі не є частиною Росії Слава Україні🌻 https://news.stanford.edu/2023/02/17/will-russia-ukraine-war-end
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday April 07, @02:19AM (2 children)
As an OT observation, that's one of the reasons I'm concerned about UBI. We don't need to grow our population of helpless people more and I think UBI would be a fast way to do that growing.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Friday April 07, @02:51AM (1 child)
>We don't need to grow our population of helpless people more and I think UBI would be a fast way to do that growing.
I don't think of UBI as encouraging helplessness, I think of it as giving just enough financial security to allow people to do their own work.
Who is more likely to build their own home? Someone who has to flip burgers 40 hours a week to have enough money for food, or somebody who has their basic expenses taken care of and can spend their time to assemble affordable materials into a home?
Any time I do a basic construction project, well over 80% of the expense is in labor, not materials.
Україна досі не є частиною Росії Слава Україні🌻 https://news.stanford.edu/2023/02/17/will-russia-ukraine-war-end
(Score: 1, Disagree) by khallow on Friday April 07, @12:30PM
The flip burgers person because they're working and learning. Nobody in the developed world has to flip burgers 40 hours a week to barely feed themselves (I grant that the rest of living expenses might be much greater, but UBI won't help with that!). The pay is much better than that. And what's missed here is that the flip burgers job is a gateway to other work that pays better, including, for example, construction work where you can actually learn how to build homes. Meanwhile the UBI person hasn't done a thing to learn how to work, much less how to turn "affordable materials" into a viable home.
And I can't help but note how low your expectations of the UBI person are. They're a pet or zoo animal that can afford to make its own home! Like swallows! Mind you they'll be stuffed in a box somewhere with couch and TV equivalent because we won't have the space for billions of cute, eclectic homes.
Once again, we already know how this will turn out because it has already happened on a similar scale today. There's a lot of couch potatoes out there right now. And anyone who would become awesome with UBI can become awesome with today's work environment. UBI fixes nothing.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Thursday April 06, @08:29PM (4 children)
If you prefer the authors' perspective:
In conclusion, the results of this study of licenced commercial pilots show a similar pattern to that reported in previous cancer incidence studies, namely higher incidence of malignant melanoma, and BCC compared with the general population. In addition, the risk for all cancers, melanoma, prostate cancer, BCC, BCC of trunk increased with an increase in the exposure metrics: number of employment years, cumulative air hours, total cumulative radiation dose, and cumulative radiation dose up to the age of 40 years in an exposure-response manner of relationship.
Україна досі не є частиною Росії Слава Україні🌻 https://news.stanford.edu/2023/02/17/will-russia-ukraine-war-end
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday April 06, @10:26PM (3 children)
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Thursday April 06, @11:28PM (2 children)
It's usually available at the end of any linked scientific study like that.
Україна досі не є частиною Росії Слава Україні🌻 https://news.stanford.edu/2023/02/17/will-russia-ukraine-war-end
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday April 07, @12:32PM (1 child)
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Friday April 07, @01:55PM
You assume I read more than the first paragraph of the study... you're the one who's interested, you do the digging. I just found that the first Google search result confirmed what I've known for 30+ years from multiple sources: Pilots have more cancer, pilots get more radiation due to their working environment (yet much less than on the surface of Mars), correlation is not causation but... the correlation has been consistent ever since they started studying it, and remains so today.
Україна досі не є частиною Росії Слава Україні🌻 https://news.stanford.edu/2023/02/17/will-russia-ukraine-war-end
(Score: 2) by inertnet on Wednesday April 05, @06:35PM (1 child)
I don't remember where I got that information earlier, but these people [esa.int] conclude:
I'm sure that some people may be able to survive for a long time over there, but I would not take the risk. Especially if I were still young and planning to have kids someday.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday April 06, @09:16AM
Notice the use of the phrase "acceptable dose limits". It's nowhere near a genuine health limit by design. Accept higher doses and we can indeed go to Mars.