I gather it is widely distributed.

I thought I was going to rely to this question, but you covered it so perfectly that I’ve nothing useful to add. Thank you for putting in the time.

The vast army of Georgia poll workers report for duty only about three days a year and get paid about $7.25 an hour. Every time we come in, the rules have changed, so we train for eight hours to learn the new protocols. Election day itself, including set-up and break-down, starts at 5:30 am and ends at 9:00 pm, two hours later if you’re a manager delivering the ballots to the regional office. Most of us are retired, and many are elderly (read: not tech-forward).

And poll workers are not perfect. One of them puts on a sweater and inadvertently obscures her name tag (not allowed). Another shows a new person how to work the check-in station (not allowed). Another tells a nonprofit they can set up their food hand-outs inside the building so as to stay out of the rain (not allowed). And at some point during the 15 hour work day, all of you find yourself accidentally socializing with one another (also not allowed). Likewise, the clerks are socializing with the voters (you guessed it: not allowed), which, worst case, is akin to being smothered in grandmas.

This sounds very like my experience back when I used to work the polls. We all did the best we could and we all knew a fair chunk of the voters, so chatting was frequent.

Truly!

Air (and methane pollution in particular) is bad, but the more noticeable problem that gets people mad is ground water: wells, streams, the stuff you drink and get in your food.

I believe the clean energy initiatives are supposed to be a counter to fracking. If everyone goes solar/wind, then we don’t need to ban fracking – the same way we don’t need to ban horses for people to use cars.

I believe the main issue is that it doesn’t get ‘clicks’ these days because everyone already knows about it. “Dog bites man” doesn’t get as many clicks as “Man bites dog” and all that. Still, a quick search brought up a couple articles from the last 12 months that weren’t stifled:

• https://www.houstonchronicle.com/business/energy/article/produced-water-midland-pollution-18561991.php
• https://www.texastribune.org/2023/10/31/texas-oil-gas-fracking-wastewater-spills-railroad-commission/
• https://www.cleveland.com/open/2024/05/fracking-waste-wells-owned-by-an-ohio-senator-are-leaking-the-state-paid-13-million-to-clean-it-up.html
• https://ohiocapitaljournal.com/2024/04/30/athens-co-fracking-leak-inaction-show-the-dire-public-health-dangers-of-ohio-regulatory-capture/
• https://www.denver7.com/news/front-range/erie/an-erie-oil-well-surrounded-by-homes-leaked-toxic-chemicals-as-cleanup-continues-neighbors-fear-health-risks
• https://www.alleghenyfront.org/rager-mountain-equitrans-gas-leak-fine/

tangential: https://stateimpact.npr.org/pennsylvania/2024/09/12/methane-emissions-much-higher-than-gas-industry-targets-study-says/

Are you trying to greenwash fracking??? Industry never cleans up. There’s no profit in it. You would hear them advertise their ‘commitment to nature’ if they rescued one tree or bunny from their own contamination. When you hear nothing, they are continuing to wreak havoc.

It’s because of the electoral college. Most states give all their electoral college votes to whomever wins the state rather than dividing the votes equitably. This means Pennsylvania – a swing state – will go either all-red or all-blue. The state has a lot of fracking, and a lot of people making money off it, so Democrats are trying to appease pro-fracking to get votes.

The people getting harmed by fracking are stuck without anyone on their ‘side’, but will presumably be more likely to vote blue because that side favors more regulation and pro-environment stuff. Note that all Harris said was she wouldn’t ban fracking. She didn’t say she wouldn’t make it difficult to do. My guess is any attempts to make it cleaner will get crushed by Congress and the Corrupted Supreme Court that has sided against Unions, workers, citizens, and the planet – all to favor of their sugar daddies. So even if the next President wants to do something about fracking, it would be a hard to actually do anything.

And for hot peppers.

Well, yeah, but that’d take a government not captured by Corporations.

This should be addressed by fixing the software, but it seems to be easier or cheaper to instead further burden the workers.

Does this archive version render any better for you? https://archive.ph/xIOUo

I saw ‘ants are everywhere’ and thought it was going to be a nature story about the secret lives of ants – something like this: https://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2013/02/24/weekend-diversion-down-the-ant-hole

The actual story was a much sadder read. :-(

Exactly! In fact ENCOURAGE singing to get a better data set for fixing the software!

No, it isn’t. If it was just for liability, they wouldn’t have to care what the driver did until someone filed an accident report or other complaint.

This is about crappy software that COULD be improved, but it is cheaper to threaten thousands of people with punishment for singing than it is to pay programmers to refine their ‘distracted’-pattern recognition.

Uhg. No. Well, yes in the most literal sense: if it is recorded there is a record of it, BUT if you ask a journalist to keep something off the record and they agree, then whatever you then disclose is usually not published of otherwise made public. See: journalists like having good relationships with their sources and if the journalist gets a reputation for saying something is off the record and then writing about it, people stop talking to them. OTH, if a journalist happens to see something heinous, you probably won’t be able to retroactively get them to let it slide – but in that case the journalist isn’t betraying a trust.

TLDR; You can’t force a journalist keep something off the record, but if you ask in advance, they might agree.

You say that because you’ve never had the good stuff. :-P

Alternate story from https://www.etymonline.com/word/cheesecake

The modern slang meaning dates from 1933; a “Time” magazine article from 1934 defined it as “leg-pictures of sporty females.”

Is it any good? I used to like Lidl and Aldi breads before COVID, when you could slice it right there. They stopped that, and so I no longer had a reason to drive 5-10 miles out of my way to go there. I’d go back for a good sauerkraut, though.

I generally agree with you, but it is so complicated. I read a piece in The Nation a few years ago (written 2019) and whenever I see a question like this I have to dig it up. Sex workers in Spain applied to become a union (OTRAS, for short, full name basically means “the other women") and were approved in August 2018. Here are a few snippets:

After OTRAS was legalized, its two dozen or so members—who include women and men, both trans and cisgender—quickly found themselves engulfed in a national controversy. Prominent activists, academics, and media personalities swarmed social media under the hashtag #SoyAbolicionista (“I’m an Abolitionist”) to denounce what they saw as basic exploitation masquerading as the service economy. The union’s opponents argue that in a patriarchal society, women can’t be consenting parties in a paid sexual act born of financial necessity. They liken sex work to slavery, hence their name: “abolitionists.”

OTRAS calls this abolitionist opposition “the industry.” “They live really well off of their discussions, books, workshops, conferences, without ever including sex workers,” Necro says. “We’re not allowed to attend the feminist conventions.” OTRAS accuses “the industry” and the government—the two loudest arms of the abolitionist camp—of racism and classism, and is irked by their claims to feminism. “A government that refuses to guarantee the rights of the most vulnerable, poorest women with the highest number of immigrants? How is that feminist?” Borrell bristles. “We’re the feminists, the ones fighting for their rights.”

While advocates for legalization argue that it will make sex work safer, abolitionists counter that it could instead endanger women who, unlike the members of OTRAS, did not choose to enter the profession on their own. Abolitionists frame their anti-prostitution stance around the issue of human trafficking, specifically for prostitution. They argue that regulating sex work will simply allow traffickers to exploit women under legal cover.

“The trafficked women have no papers, so if police raid a club, the women have no choice but to say they’re there because they want to be,” says Rocío Nieto […] Once law enforcement is out of earshot, Nieto says, “none of the women tell you they want to be there. None of them tell you they want to do that work.”

A handful of smaller radical-left parties also back OTRAS, as well as one unlikely ally: the right-wing Ciudadanos party, known for its harsh anti-immigration stance, among other more traditionally conservative postures. “Experience shows us that when the State refuses to regulate, the mafias make the rules,” the party’s press corps wrote me in an e-mail.