You don’t actually care about that.

Disabled people are not your fucking pawns

I didn't intend for it to sound like that, and reading my comment again I see that I should have expanded on it further. I'm hoping my posting history can show where I stand on issues like this.

What I should have said was that delivery services can be helpful for the elderly or those with disabilities, and that legislation on delivery services can help us improve access to those without the harms of these current robots.

For what it's worth, we don't have these robots where I am, so I didn't know how bad it was. In person, I've only seen a few that were sitting around our university plaza last fall. I looked online, and it looks like we don't currently have any here. I will keep what you've mentioned in mind when talking about these bots moving forward, especially if our local politicians are going to be deciding on them in the near future.

To expand on where my thinking was coming from, I have read first person accounts from people who can't leave their homes easily, and also how existing delivery programs are helpful but don't have the capacity to meet everyone that needs it: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/seniors-grocery-app-delivery-anjel-vancouver-1.4938035

Often with these discussions, automation is brought up as a way to bridge the gaps that current public funding can't fulfill.

I also recently read about how some cities have a thriving bike/scooter sharing program, while others are suffering from mismanagement, excessive prices, and chaos; and how it came down to whether the programs were started as a public project or if they were led by tech companies. So in my earlier comment, I was tying information to this story and saying that regulated and/or publicly managed delivery options might be a better thing to focus energy on

https://bikehub.ca/about-us/news/bike-share-dilemma-why-metro-vancouver-needs-regional-bike-share-system

These bots can be helpful for the elderly or those with disabilities. It's probably more effective to legislate them at the municipal level.

Good luck! 😄

Is the outhouse for something, or is the goal just to build an outhouse?

Nice! That seems to be a common sentiment, I'll have to see it soon

I was also hoping that the article would explain why. I was guessing that with certain chemicals, it might dilute it enough to become harmless.

But instead, the closest I found was this, which cited cost as the reason: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Submerged_munitions

I'd like to see a comparison of the long term economic costs of these accidents with just dealing with them early on. Or even entombing them the way we do nuclear waste.

I also found this article and map

https://nonproliferation.org/chemical-weapon-munitions-dumped-at-sea/

The prevalence is pretty high globally

https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/diabetes

I find it similar to Technology Connections, where even if I'm not interested in the topic before I watch the video, I still get something out of it afterwards :)

I think you are misunderstanding the goal of this. The article says that men "are less likely to ask doctors for help with a range of symptoms". Addressing this is a part of addressing toxic masculinity and historic inequities, and a part of the broader work of finding the appropriate healthcare intervention for each person instead of the traditional one size fits all approach.

I would rather that men go to doctors for health advice instead of trying to fix it on their own, or worse, going to online influencers for advice. Figuring out why that happens is a step towards changing it for the better. If this work actually produces results, it will be good for both men and women.

I'm sorry, here it is: https://www.ipsos.com/en-uk/yes-prime-minister-questionnaire-design-matters

Sorry about that, done!