I had heard that a majority of jobs are acquired through networking. Being open about your network seems healthier than hiding it. Especially if it’s a case of choosing one qualified candidate from a pool of qualified candidates and not hiring a bad fit just for nepotism’s sake, but even then seems better to tell people yourself and not let it be exclusively gossip behind your back.

It has repeated with often horrific results across many cultures. European with hunts, Mao’s Cultural Revolution, Khmer Rouge (Cambodian genocide), etc. Seems to be a bug in the human source code.

The low-residue diet (to avoid poop stops) takes a lot of planning. I have zero desire to do that myself, but am kinda glad people I know who did that were open about what was involved. Seemed more like a public service announcement than a flex.

The campaigns get donations. Some donations are money, and other donations are time. Seems fine to me.

It might be a claim he understands the investigative process well enough to gum it up and run cover for targets of Democrats.

Deflating the balloon is a way better scenario than a pop. Fingers crossed.

Humans, in aggregate, behave consistently when presented with structured prompts. The trick with new technology is to figure out what presentation of the information results in the desired behavior of checking for AI blind spots. An example with Flock is that they don’t present partial matches any differently than complete matches - in that case the improvement of describing partial matches as incomplete is obvious, but other triggers for human common reactions are more challenging to tease out. But it can be done!

I believe if regulators set up a system to encourage research and implementation of responsible data presentation - meaning outputs that make it easy for humans to have appropriate trust and add checking as needed - that would have more positive and lasting impacts than a ban.

Cats get the most common types of birds, though, while windows can get entire flocks of less common birds during migration. For susceptible migratory birds, windows are a much higher population level threat.

It’s mostly a safe assumption for wild birds, too, though, and for similar reasons. It’s easier to find a young oblivious bird, or a desperately hungry bird taking a risk in a less protected feeding spot, to snack on if the population is healthy, and when the population is smaller there is less predation because they all fit within the safe feeding areas. If a wild population is large, there will be more deaths due to disease (which spreads faster in crowded conditions), and more deaths from hunger as they outstrip their food sources. If the population is kept in check more by predators than by disease or hunger, it’s generally not a threat to the size of the population.

There are some specific locations that have certain animal populations actually under threat by domestic cats, but those are almost all ground animals and not birds.

Birds that get eaten tend to have high reproductive rates, and if predator levels drop their population gets so high they start to die from hunger or disease (which spreads faster in crowded conditions). Many predators eat an incredible number of animals - a large owl may eat several small birds every day for itself, and a multiple of that if feeding nestlings. Cats aren’t unique here.

Domestic cats can be a threat to specific populations already endangered by other factors, but usually those are ground animals. Cats being a threat to population levels of birds in most of the world just isn’t believable to me.

Which primary party ballot they had is only available for primaries in states that have partisan primaries (as opposed to “jungle primaries” where all candidates are on one ballot). Whether a person voted is public. How they voted is private.

It’s legally required to make public who voted. Similar reasoning to sweepstakes being required to publicly announce the name of the winning person, it makes it much more difficult to game the results.

Both. People who are promoted to management because they are good individual contributors are often lacking in management skills (they turn from something they are good at to something they are bad at), and people who crave and hard pursue management positions rarely have management skills (always bad).