It just doesn't display your own answers (relative to the static correct answers), giving the impression that there's no correlation between what you attempted, versus the actual expected answers.
Also, I agree that "X" usually is an indicator of a "wrong" answer. And why place check marks (⍻) across all of the other answers, when check marks ordinarily indicate correct/approved answers?
It seems like a bug. It would make sense if there were NOTHING for incorrect answers left unmarked, an X for YOUR unmarked correct answers or marked incorrect answers, and check marks for the answers you marked off correctly.
Given that it's a quiz, people want to compare their answers to the expected answers, so I think they need to create this logic, or patch whatever bug is preventing the answer markings from rendering properly.
But is not perfectly reasonable use of language, if you consider that the language as written there is for humans to read and understand, not for machines to expand acronyms and be confused about semantical errors?
But sure, what you describe has a name, RAS syndrome.
Cool. I'm going to disregard any memory of having read this comment, or any of the ideas it attempts to present as facts. My memory is terrible, and if I did remember it, that would likely disprove everything you just said.
You helped me realize that I should only believe what I tell myself is true, rather than what I might mistakenly remember.
Good thing I won't remember writing this. It would be weird remembering a moment when I was right, but having to disregard it as wrong, because I tell myself I'm wrong, plainly, and in the face of my own memories.
Drunk driving movements throughout the 1970's and 1980's are responsible for this regulation. Groups like MADD: Mothers Against Drunk Driving fought hard to change the way things were. Organizations involving people with relatives that passed away as a result of a drunk driving accident, which was frighteningly common back then.
During high school, and prior to attending Driver's Ed classes, we had an assembly organized by various local chapters of anti-drunk driving groups, where a guy in his late 20's spoke about being amputated below the waist, because when he drove into a large tree, the engine block rebounded through the dashboard, and onto his pelvis, coming home from the bar one night. People talk about how prior to automotive safety standards developed in the 1990's (air bags, anti-lock brakes) cars were absolute death traps, and I believe it.
That movement achieved some of its goals with those laws, and receded during the 1990's when broader programs encompassing drugs and social diseases were more normalized.
I think it makes sense, because in the United States, people find some amount of identity in the cars they own, which seems to be less intense throughout Europe, where driving absolutely everywhere isn't as ingrained into daily life and culture.
New “direct laser writing” set-ups, however, cost about as
much as a high-quality industrial 3D printer, and allow for
printing at the scale of hundreds of nanometers (hundred
to thousand time thinner than a human hair), opening up
possibilities for scientists to experiment with structural
coloration.
That sounds like some really exciting stuff right there.
everything is deadly at large doses
...
if we were to ban everything that leads to
a certain point of toxicity, we would not
be able to live with anything around us
No, that's not how this works.
The salient point here, is that we know about specific things which are predominantly non-essential, and atrociously bad for everyone.
Lead. Asbestos. Cigarette smoke. DDT. Plutonium. This list is not exhaustive.
Believe it or not, humanity is well acquainted with some natural, persistent, toxic villains, that no one needs to share a room with. No one's life is actually better with any of these things.
Yeah, coffee has low concentrations of acrylamide in it. Then, use that to argue that there's the same sort of calculated risk in the stimulant side-effects sought by those who self administer a cigarette's dose of smoke.
People try to form the same sort of argument, when contrasting natural substances and materials, versus synthetic counterparts. Gee, everything's natural! Yes, and the sun will swallow the better part of the solar system during its red giant phase. Except, that's not the point.
Muddying the waters, by digging up grey zone edge cases doesn't make asbestos a desirable choice for consumer goods, or even professional products. It doesn't make cigarettes good for anyone. It doesn't make lead a practical additive for gasoline. It doesn't mean we should render random birds extinct as by-catch, so we can barbecue all summer. It doesn't mean plutonium, in any amount, should be handled beyond the watchful eyes of armed guards by pretty much anyone.
The thing is though that most of the materials in that list can still be used in ways that don't incur risk. Just because making your water system out of a toxic metal is a bad idea doesn't mean you should outlaw the use of fishing weights and lead-acid batteries, in the same way the banning the shoving of asbestos into every corner of a house doesn't mean you have to also stop using it in firefighting equipment.
Actually, it kind of does. We really should stop selling lead fishing weights, and avoid using lead-acid batteries as much as possible. Mostly, because the world really is a better place for everyone, when consumer retail channels aren't fire-hosing these things into the waste stream. Lead acid batteries probably have unique applications to brag about, but fishing weights don't.
Yes, on shelves, it's all controlled behind appealing packaging, and a yeah quantity of people derive pleasure from using things properly, and disposing of their waste responsibly, but another portion of people take it home will simply spew it out into the open, dumping it into landfills, where maybe it leaches into a water table, and maybe it doesn't. But if you look at the inputs, it all started with making and selling such products at all.
Fire departments probably benefit from the use of asbestos, as a niche class of use cases. Simply knowing that there are exceptions to general utility, should not guide choices about broad marketplace availability.
The problem with DDT was that while it didn't cause significant problems for people (at the concentrations used), it caused huge problems for birds (thinned shells). At the same time it wiped out the mosquito carrying malaria along the gulf coast. The ecologic side effects were terrible, but in many cases human risk may well have been reduced.
Some asbestos is extremely dangerous, some is not (it depends on their chemical composition and microstructure)... using the same name for all of them is not helpful to safety, nor is declaring all of them dangerous.
There is Plutonium in the Pacific ocean. Should we guard the ocean, ban swimming in the ocean, ban fish caught in the ocean? Why, when sun exposure is much more likely to kill you with carcinoma than ocean plutonium?
I definitely am still going to go outside during the day even though the dangeous sun is irradiating me. I'm going to eat toast with dangerous acrylamide.
...And I'm not taking off the dangerous lead weights ballencing my tire rims on the drive to work, because I want to live.
> And I'm not taking off the dangerous lead weights ballencing my tire rims on the drive to work
Yes you will, because they are being banned in a growing number of states and countries. Lead weights are already illegal in the EU and in several of the most populous states in the U.S.
> because I want to live.
That's silly. Unbalanced wheels are annoying, but they aren't dangerous unless the shimmy is extreme, like when you have a lot of mud stuck in your wheels, in which case wheel weights won't help anyway.
The perspective is so wrong it begs disbelief on some level. An attempt to open doors, to provide access to medicine is not some thing made of fear. You can drive on roads, you can mail a letter, you can see a doctor.
Instantaneous annihilation, or worse, getting irradiated at lethal doses, only to collapse into a heap of boils and sores, wretching and dry heaving until you cough up your ulcerated intestines, actually is something to fear.
But yeah, you know, guns or butter. Nuclear deterents make war generally unrealistic, once you arm yourself with enough bombs. Nevermind the liklihood that that more bombs you have, the closer we all are to one of them going off accidentally.
But you’re right, because of nuclear secrecy, and the government classification of military secrets, we’re not allowed to know how close we are to having our lives immediately and directly affected, not by “Nuclear War” but by accidents in pursuit of possessing a deterent.
Therefore, since we cannot be permitted to know such things, our lives must not be affected by those things, and it’s irrational to fear them.
Instead, we should fear the government trying to buy us all dog food, because it would be ridiculously inefficient to allocate funds to supply such things, when so many people don’t own dogs. It’s clearly a vector to corruption and dog poisoning. Perfectly expected and rational.
Its a fact of life in this country that your opinion about the ACA depends a lot on where you get your news and your own interactions with the health care system.
I'm fortunate to live in a populous area of a state that wholeheartedly adopted its own exchange. There are plenty of good choices available. When my employer ran out of money and went out of business a few years ago, I could afford a plan for my family that was far cheaper than COBRA. We got affordable health care through the exchange until I could land a regular job.
But many people don't. There are a growing number of markets that aren't offering ACA plans at all. Other markets are seeing 20% y/y growth in their prices. In short, the ACA is failing. You can be mad about that all you want to, but it doesn't change the fact that being afraid of the ACA is totally rational.
It's not so much that it's failing, as much as it's been resisted and sabotaged. It's a distraction to think in terms of markets. Not when you can plug a money hose, the size of the military budget, into the supply side of the equation.
To name government subsidies as the ultimate and most fearsome form of corruption, and an abyss which has no known bottom, is to call the size of the U.S. military budget the purest form of corruption known to history.
And indeed, if the U.S. military, backed by its nuclear deterrent is such a thing to be feared, then it is assuredly more fearful than the failure of any medical plan.
Consider that we use nuclear powered aircraft carriers and cruise missiles designed to carry nuclear payloads, such to the effect, that in a conventional war, we smear an industrialized nation like Iraq, wiping maybe 100,000 people off the face of the earth, at a cost of 1,000 enlisted personnel. So take that degree of fear (or maybe just the portion of it, that happens to be backed by our global nuclear strike capacity), and point it directly at those who would let an accountant stand between your children and a doctor. What then?
Also, I agree that "X" usually is an indicator of a "wrong" answer. And why place check marks (⍻) across all of the other answers, when check marks ordinarily indicate correct/approved answers?
It seems like a bug. It would make sense if there were NOTHING for incorrect answers left unmarked, an X for YOUR unmarked correct answers or marked incorrect answers, and check marks for the answers you marked off correctly.
Given that it's a quiz, people want to compare their answers to the expected answers, so I think they need to create this logic, or patch whatever bug is preventing the answer markings from rendering properly.