Hitachi Ltd and Hitachi Building Systems Co Ltd have developed a touchless operating panel establishing an elevator without physical floor buttons that allows users to experience a completely new sensation.
It really is just a combination of existing technologies though, isn't it? Bars that use infrared and enable touchless interaction with systems have been around for at least about 5 years by now. Unlike Hitachi those systems don't come coupled with a display (they can be combined for the same effect with one though), so I guess this is somewhat new?
Does this work with gloves on? One building I work in has electrostatic buttons but you need bare skin for them to work
You're probably thinking of capacitive touchscreens when you ask this question. For those, you need an electrical conductor (like your finger) touching the screen to work, since the system only reacts to such. Here they are using infrared, so you don't have to touch the screen. You should therefore absolutely be able to use such panels while wearing gloves.
0 ( +0 / -0 )
OK, so what? My point was only that punishing "motivation" rather than a crime is wrong. That the Americans do it does not make right.
Your point was? Did you perhaps use the wrong account to reply?
0 ( +2 / -2 )
I almost never agree with most of the above posters but in this case I do. Monkeypox has caused zero deaths so far, is not transmissible by airborne infection, and the vast majority of cases are being experienced in a cohort to which most people do not belong. It is curable by available means of medication and although unpleasant, sufferers will almost certainly recover. So what’s all the panic about? Target vulnerable populations, educate them as to the risks, treat medically when necessary and stop trying to beat this up into something it isn’t, i.e. another pandemic.
Outside of Africa (where there are countries where the virus is endemic) there have been 3 deaths so far. A 41 year old man in Brazil with underlying comorbidities who died two days ago. On the same day another man in Spain died of an encephalitis associated with a monkeypox infection. And the third one died yesterday although I don't know of more information on that one. It is quite rare, nontheless there have been 3 cases where monkeypox is believed to have played a role in their death.
Monkey Pox, is a gay or bi-sexual transmitted disease. So a straight individual has sexual relations with a bi-sexual partner unknowingly it is going to spread even further. I am not sure now, however, many years ago I was in a gay bar and as a straight woman with my gay friends was an eye opening experience. There were many married Japanese men and I only knew this fact because of their wedding bands.
It is indeed correct that most cases were men (around 99%) of which most engaged in sex with other men (again around the same %), but monkeypox is usually not a disease that is primarily sexually transmitted.
Monkeypox virus is transmitted from one person to another by close contact with lesions, body fluids, respiratory droplets and contaminated materials such as bedding. The incubation period of monkeypox is usually from 6 to 13 days but can range from 5 to 21 days.
5 ( +6 / -1 )
The brand image of Nissan, allied with Renault SA of France, has suffered after its star executive Carlos Ghosn was arrested in Japan on various financial misconduct charges in 2018.
Yeah no, he is not the reason I'll never even consider buying one of their cars. But I guess it's easier to point fingers and shift the blame than to admit that their very own actions lead to a big part to the image loss.
2 ( +6 / -4 )
When the articles on South Korea wanting to cool things down and try mending the relationship problems with Japan was published, my first thought was:
" Korea will now find something more to complain about"
And here we are!
Didn't even take a week!
Right, what could possibly go wrong this time around.
Japan explanation of Korean wartime forced labor insufficient: UNESCO (https://english.kyodonews.net/news/2021/07/8423f0f870f1-japan-explanation-of-korean-wartime-forced-labor-insufficient-unesco.html)
When the Sites of Japan's Meiji Industrial Revolution were added to the World Cultural Heritage list in 2015, Japan promised that it would explain the situation surrounding the Korean wartime workers, based on an understanding that they were "brought against their will and forced to work under harsh conditions."
Why would anyone see an issue with this, right? They merely promised to tell the whole story in order to receive approval, and then went back on their word last time. But no, you're at fault for complaining the next time around, even though you have been lied to before.
UNESCO calls for info on wartime Korean labor on Battleship Island (https://www.asahi.com/ajw/articles/14401656)
The UNESCO World Heritage Committee has expressed strong concerns that the Japanese government is not doing enough to disclose the negative aspects of a World Heritage site where Koreans were forced to work.
The committee passed a unanimous resolution on July 22 criticizing the inadequate explanation about workers brought from the Korean Peninsula to work at the Hashima Coal Mine on a tiny island off the coast of Nagasaki city.
And it's not like Korea is the only nation seeing it this way, as the article on The Asahi Shimbun shows. The committee mentioned here is made up by 21 nations, and neither Japan nor Korea were part of the committee at that time of the 44th session.
-7 ( +1 / -8 )
In Brazil, a politician saying the army is on his side should be interpreted as a threat.
My thoughts exactly. Especially when the politician is Bolsonaro who has made several rather questionable remarks in the past already.
7 ( +8 / -1 )
So...he's guilty of rape. But, she's guilty of defaming him because she wrote about him raping her?
Between this and all the other judicial rulings and govt nonsense lately, I think the acronym TIJ should be changed to WTF from now on.
I believe it's down to the article concerning defamation in Japan, which is kind of weird (at least in my opinion).
Chapter XXXIV. Crimes against Reputation
Article 230. (Defamation)
(1) A person who defames another by alleging facts in public shall, regardless of whether such facts are true or false, be punished by imprisonment with or without work for not more than 3 years or a fine of not more than 500,000 yen.
(2) A person who defames a dead person shall not be punished unless such defamation is based on a falsehood.
At least to me, it seems kind of backwards that you can be punished for speaking the truth unless the person in question has died. There are some special provisions concerning this article, but I'm no expert on Japanese law and therefore have no idea why they don't apply in this case.
Article 230-2. (Special Provision for Matters Concerning Public Interest)
(1) When an act proscribed under paragraph 1 of the preceding Article is found to relate to matters of public interest and to have been conducted solely for the benefit of the public, the truth or falsity of the alleged facts shall be examined, and punishment shall not be imposed if they are proven to be true.
(2) In application of the preceding paragraph, matters concerning the criminal act of a person who has not been prosecuted shall be deemed to be matters of public interest.
(3) When the act proscribed under paragraph 1 of the preceding Article is made with regard to matters concerning a public officer or a candidate for election, punishment shall not be imposed if an inquiry into the truth or falsity of the alleged facts is made and they are proven to be true
But maybe someone else can give us an explanation. I still think it's silly that she has to pay a fine for speaking the truth. He was very well aware of what he was doing, so it wasn't just some kind of accident.
5 ( +6 / -1 )
His young wife had a stroke too ?!?!
Yikes, that used to be totally unheard of.
> What's going on?
That's absolutely nothing unheard of. She suffered from a TIA (Transient Ischemic Attack). Long before covid (and therefore also the vaccine) was a thing, there have been studies concerning younger people suffering from the very same. And yes, that also includes children. I hope that it's just the ignorance speaking and you're not purposely trying to attest her case to the vaccine in order to spin your favourite narrative once again.
There are several things that might be the cause of her TIA that happened recently according to her own statements. For starters she started birth control pills not long ago (which can cause blood clots). She just recovered from covid and she was on a long flight from Paris back to where she lives. All those happened in a small time frame.
And to show you that I'm not making things up as I go unlike some other people, here the titles of some articles on this topic.
Analysis of 1008 Consecutive Patients Aged 15 to 49 With First-Ever Ischemic Stroke from 2009 (https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/full/10.1161/STROKEAHA.108.529883)
Predictors of Stroke After Transient Ischemic Attack in Children from 2015 (https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/strokeaha.115.009904)
Boston Children's Hospital site on TIA (https://www.childrenshospital.org/conditions/transient-ischemic-attack)
-2 ( +1 / -3 )
So many things missing from this article
There was an article called FOCUS: Sri Lankan's dying agony disregarded in Japan immigration center (https://english.kyodonews.net/news/2022/03/de643a928d70-focus-sri-lankan-womans-dying-agony-disregarded-in-japan-immigration-center.html) on Kyodo News some days ago. I've not yet been able to read the full article, so I'm not sure if it will answer all your questions, but it will give you more information on what happened. It at least contains some disturbing information I was not aware of until I read part of the article.
5 ( +6 / -1 )
Unfortunately I sent the post before I could give a proper explanation. Obviously this list differs from what the article mentions. It is concerning restrictions for people heading to Japan starting from June 1. Yes, it is somewhat off-topic but I think it's of interest to the people here and there is a good chance that the countries in the list correspond in some way with the once the article failed to mention. I mean, if they decide now that people arriving from Fiji have to quarantine for several days in June, I highly doubt that it's one of the countries considered save to travel to.
3 ( +4 / -1 )
Since there is no list here, I'll just copy the one from the website of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (https://www.mofa.go.jp/ca/fna/page4e_001053.html)
From June 1, 2022: Measures in response to Omicron variant / New Border Measures (28)
Regardless of the vaccination status of the entrants/returnees, on-arrival test, home quarantine and other measures are not required.
Afghanistan, Algeria, Argentine, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belgium, Benin, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Bulgaria, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Chile, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cote d’lvoire, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Estonia, Ethiopia, Finland, France, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Hong Kong, Hungary, Iceland, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Jordan, Kenya, Kyrgyz, Laos, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Mexico, Monaco, Mongolia, Montenegro, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nigeria, Norway, Palau, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Philippines, Poland, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Romania, Russia, Rwanda, Serbia, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, South Sudan, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Taiwan, Tanzania, Thailand, Timor-Leste, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United States of America, Zambia
On-arrival test and 7-day home quarantine (or 3-day home quarantine + negative result of a voluntary test) are required, however, those who obtain a valid vaccination certificate are not required to have on-arrival test, home quarantine and other measures.
Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Bahamas, Barbados, Belarus, Belize, Bhutan, Botswana, Brunei, Burkina Faso, Cabo Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros, Cook Island, Cuba, Cyprus, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominica, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Eswatini, Federated States of Micronesia, Gabon, Gambia, Georgia, Grenada, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, India, Kazakhstan, Kiribati, Kosovo, Kuwait, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Liechtenstein, Macau, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Moldova, Namibia, Nauru, Nepal, Nicaragua, Niger, Niue, North Korea, North Macedonia, Oman, Palestine, Peru, Portugal, Republic of Burundi, Republic of Congo, Republic of the Marshall Islands, Republic of Vanuatu, Saint Christopher and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, San Marino, Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Seychelles, Solomon, Somalia, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Syria, Tajikistan, Togo, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Ukraine, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Vatican, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Western Sahara, Yemen, Zimbabwe
On-arrival test is required. 3-day quarantine at a government-designated facility is required, however, those who obtain a valid vaccination certificate may have 7-day home quarantine (or 3-day home quarantine + negative result of a voluntary test) instead.
Albania, Fiji, Pakistan, Sierra Leone
3 ( +4 / -1 )
The U.S. children ranged in age from 1 to 6 years old, and two required liver transplants. The European cases are in a similar age range, though some have been older, WHO officials said.
So are we just going to ignore that the vaccines have only been authorized for the ages 5+ and the cases are also among kids younger than that?
4 ( +6 / -2 )
So according to the Japanese article she got 80,000 yen by her parents every month, they also pay her tuition and she earns somewhere from 70,000 to 80,000 yen every month from her part-time job. No money issues, enough money on hand to actually pay for the order...
Still she knowingly targeted a foreigner assuming that she would be able to pay with a fake bill without him noticing. Had she tried this with regular food because she had next to no money left at that time, I could at least somewhat understand her actions, but what she did is inexcusable. Also I'd say she only showed remorse because she got caught and not because she felt actually bad for what she did. All things considered only a suspended sentence seems too light to me. I would have expected at least some kind of fine here.
-4 ( +7 / -11 )
How about you read the article and not just the headline?
It comes as scientists in Ukraine have been told to destroy all "high-threat" lab diseases.
Colonel Hamish de Bretton-Gordon, former chief of the British Army's chemical weapons unit, said Russian troops could storm a lab and use it as a base to unleash a bioweapon.
The level-three lab works with coronaviruses, tuberculosis, yellow fever, SARS, West Nile, and some strains of influenza.
One of the two labs is in Odessa and the other is in Kyiv.
Nowhere in the article does it say that they are working on biological weapons there. That is just something you want to see in the article. But I guess any research lab working with pathogens is a place where they develop biological weapons. They most definitely don't use those labs to research diseases in order to find cures and the like.
10 ( +11 / -1 )
virusrex is absolutely right that your argument is solely based on an option not being disproven. It does not seem like you are even willing to confront actual arguments made by others. Otherwise you would at least have acknowledged that you did indeed at the start misrepresent the content of an article. It is quite telling how that is unimportant to you, since Drosten still used a language that lacked absolutes and did not dismiss an unlikely option. Repeating that something can not be disproven is not a sound argument and you would do well to instead provide evidence that actually supports your claims instead. No, just saying that there are people that also believe that the virus is of artificial origin is not evidence but a claim. We all know that there are such people, but the people you are talking about could be the guy working down the street in the convenience store and the old lady you know from the park for all we know. It is a whole different story if those people are actually experts and have made such statements not too long ago.
Remember how I said that scientists hardly speak in absolutes? That is exactly why I wrote that the information Farzan's statement was based on is most likely outdated. Unless they have conducted absolutely no research in the last 2 years, there should be far more information available now than it was before. But hey, maybe they just sat on their hands and didn't do anything at all for the last few years. I refrain from using absolutes here because I myself don't have the evidence to back up that there is now more information available, but common sense would dictate that they did actually try to make new findings. Only Farzan knows if those new findings did or did not change his opinion concerning the origin of the virus.
Also, how can you claim that Farzan's statement is correct? He did not say anything that can objectively verified as either correct or incorrect. Sure, if it's artificial he got it right with the 60 to 70% and if it is natural he still got it right with the remaining 30 to 40%, but that is like covering all possibilities in a statement and then claiming it's correct.
I'm not looking for loopholes either, I was merely trying explaining to you how people in science work and what language is usually used.
Here for you a small excerpt from an article published in Cell (a peer-reviewed scientific journal) back in mid-September and written by 21 different authors. I'm not trying to convince you of anything with this article, but you can see how the authors at several places used language with a certain degree of uncertainty.
The origins of SARS-CoV-2: A critical review(https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0092867421009910#bib82)
As for the vast majority of human viruses, the most parsimonious explanation for the origin of SARS-CoV-2 is a zoonotic event. The documented epidemiological history of the virus is comparable to previous animal market-associated outbreaks of coronaviruses with a simple route for human exposure. The contact tracing of SARS-CoV-2 to markets in Wuhan exhibits striking similarities to the early spread of SARS-CoV to markets in Guangdong, where humans infected early in the epidemic lived near or worked in animal markets. Zoonotic spillover by definition selects for viruses able to infect humans. Although strong safeguards should be consistently employed to minimize the likelihood of laboratory accidents in virological research, those laboratory escapes documented to date have almost exclusively involved viruses brought into laboratories specifically because of their known human infectivity.
There is currently no evidence that SARS-CoV-2 has a laboratory origin. There is no evidence that any early cases had any connection to the WIV, in contrast to the clear epidemiological links to animal markets in Wuhan, nor evidence that the WIV possessed or worked on a progenitor of SARS-CoV-2 prior to the pandemic. The suspicion that SARS-CoV-2 might have a laboratory origin stems from the coincidence that it was first detected in a city that houses a major virological laboratory that studies coronaviruses. Wuhan is the largest city in central China with multiple animal markets and is a major hub for travel and commerce, well connected to other areas both within China and internationally. The link to Wuhan therefore more likely reflects the fact that pathogens often require heavily populated areas to become established (Pekar et al., 2021).
We contend that although the animal reservoir for SARS-CoV-2 has not been identified and the key species may not have been tested, in contrast to other scenarios there is substantial body of scientific evidence supporting a zoonotic origin. Although the possibility of a laboratory accident cannot be entirely dismissed, and may be near impossible to falsify, this conduit for emergence is highly unlikely relative to the numerous and repeated human-animal contacts that occur routinely in the wildlife trade. Failure to comprehensively investigate the zoonotic origin through collaborative and carefully coordinated studies would leave the world vulnerable to future pandemics arising from the same human activities that have repeatedly put us on a collision course with novel viruses.
-1 ( +1 / -2 )
Ok, I'll try to explain this to you once again. Omitting parts from sources in a way they change how people can interpret them, is misrepresenting things. Why also leave out the part that shows that the latter part is something that was said years ago and might no longer be up to date?
So first we have the part where Drosten states that dangerous things are being done in the laboratory in Wuhan. And then we have the view of another scientist that in his view the virus was likely created in said laboratory. By leaving out part of what Drosten said, you make it seem like two experts gave statements that point in the same direction, while in reality the opposite is the case. By leaving out the information on the date of the latter statement, one could think that both were made around the same time not long ago, while in fact one was made years ago and one is actual. This means that Drosten had far more information available to him when he mad his statement than Farzan did when he made his.
And no, I'm not confirming what you said, at least not in the way you'd like to believe. There is a certain degree of uncertainty in Drosten's comments. But like I said, it is quite common for scientists to avoid absolutes if there is even a minimal chance that the other of two events occurred. Not dismissing a possibility is quite different from presenting said possibility as likely though(remember the 60 to 70% part?). Since he is convinced that the virus was not created in a laboratory, the uncertainty is in my opinion quite likely based on the lack of evidence that to 100% shows that the virus is of natural origin. If there was any convincing evidence that said otherwise, I'm sure that he would have used different words.
0 ( +2 / -2 )
Yes, I speak german and I picked just the important parts which shows that a virus origin in a laboratory in China is not off the table.
You picked the parts that fit your narrative and nothing else. In fact you picked it in a way that changed the meaning of what was really said. Yes, it is not of the table but by omitting that he is convinced that it is not the case, you are intentionally misrepresenting what was said. Yes, I'm also well aware that when someone is convinced of something that that person can be wrong. It is also not uncommon for scientists to avoid talking in absolutes if there is another possibility no matter how small. The fact that the word of an expert in a field and a scientist at that holds more weight than yours still remains as well. He made his statement based on facts and evidence, so I'm far more willing to believe him that it most likely did not happen. By misrepresenting what someone has said you're also just discrediting your own posts as well. Why should I believe anything you write when a quick search shows me that you are not being honest?
Also what you pointed out, 60 to 70% is not something someone said just a short while ago.
Even it was said a long time ago, doesn't mean it is wrong. As long as there are still no clear evidence shown by a fully investigation at the Laboratory in Wuhan, it can be correct.
No, it is quite important that this statement was made long ago. Has Mike Farzan since repeated this statement? Maybe I missed an article but a quick search did not yield any such statement apart from articles mentioning the emails from January. He made this statement years ago based on the information available to him back then. In the time after his statement there has obviously been a lot of research and new information and evidence have come to light. If he has not repeated it since, it is just as likely that he has changed his view. We have no idea if he still holds this view or not. There is no point to use it as evidence instead of statements based on current knowledge.
1 ( +3 / -2 )
Monty, I assume that the article you're talking about is this one from n-tv(https://www.n-tv.de/panorama/Drosten-Laborunfall-moeglich-aber-unwahrscheinlich-article23115164.html). Do you actually speak German or did you pick up that information somewhere else? I'm just asking to see if you knowlingly decided to omit important parts for whatever reason or if your source is at fault here.
Publizierte Projektberichte würden zeigen, dass "in Wuhan durchaus Sachen gemacht wurden, die man als gefährlich bezeichnen könnte.
It begs to question for instance why this part was omitted.
"Dabei hätte nicht das Sars-CoV-2-Virus herauskommen können", ist der Experte allerdings überzeugt.
The virologist whom you partly cited explicitly states that in his opinion this could not have resulted in the COVID virus. Hopefully it's just a coincidence that you dropped this part, right? While he said that they were doing stuff in Wuhan one can consider dangerous, COVID was not created there.
Der Entdecker des Sars-Rezeptors, Mike Farzan, schätzt die Wahrscheinlichkeit, dass der Ursprung von Sars-CoV-2 im Labor liegen könnte, auf 60 bis 70 Prozent ein.
Why not also cite the part where it is mentioned that this was said in a teleconference shortly after the start of the pandemic (so likely about 2 years ago)?
Vertuschungsvorwürfe, wie sie von Wiesendanger gegen ihn erhoben wurden, wies Drosten erneut entschieden zurück. Die Kritik des Hamburger Physikers bezieht sich vor allem auf einen E-Mail-Verkehr, der Anfang Januar im US-Kongress veröffentlicht wurde. In den E-Mails wird eine Telefonkonferenz führender Virologen nachgezeichnet, die kurz nach Beginn der Pandemie darüber diskutieren, was der Ursprung von Sars-CoV-2 sein könnte.
See? A teleconference held by virologists shortly after the start of the pandemic. Yes, the emails have only been released in January but the actual teleconference was a long time ago. So the part about the 60 to 70& is not something someone said just a short while ago.
Lastly, why also drop the part that leading virologists released a statement shortly after the teleconference that said that they disagree with this view?
The rapid, open, and transparent sharing of data on this outbreak is now being threatened by rumours and misinformation around its origins. We stand together to strongly condemn conspiracy theories suggesting that COVID-19 does not have a natural origin. Scientists from multiple countries have published and analysed genomes of the causative agent, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), and they overwhelmingly conclude that this coronavirus originated in wildlife, as have so many other emerging pathogens. This is further supported by a letter from the presidents of the US National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine and by the scientific communities they represent.
I'm honestly not sure if you are knowingly misrepresenting what is written in articles or not. It won't kill anyone if there are a few sentences more to read, so please don't just pull single parts out of context and give people the option to read everything. It would also be nice to provide the URL to the articles you mention so others don't have to hunt them down themselves.
4 ( +7 / -3 )
Going by all the downvotes it seems like our right-wing friends are around again in full force.
Lest we forget Japan's behavior last time around when they gained South Korea's approval for listing Gunkanjima. First they promise to tell the whole history of that place including the part about the forced labor only to turn around and present a whitewashed version of history after they gained approval. So Korea was right back then when they were first against the approval since what they likely assumed did happen(the whitewashing). I can only assume that it's the same this time around. They are not against the listing in general but they are against listing a site when you only the part of history is told that puts Japan in a good light while leaving out everything else. And considering Japan's behavior last time I don't think that Korea will buckle this time.
0 ( +9 / -9 )
They must stop blaming piracy, while those publisher not doing good job in making those manga available aboard. All they do just blaming piracy all the time.
That's along the lines what I usually write under such articles. If people would not buy their manga anyway (too expensive to import in some parts of the world, they don't speak Japanese, etc.), how are they losing money? This has been ongoing for ages now but it doesn't seem like anything has changed at all. Most of the times I just read about them complaining that someone else is profiting from filling a void they are unwilling to fill themselves. People absolutely should pay for the content they access but for that you have to give them the option.
Also concerning paying people, it would also be nice to pay the people actually creating those pieces better. I've heard about a dormitory project for animators a few years back that provided a cheap place for animators to live since they earn so little. From the GoGetFunding page of the project:
According to a 2015 survey conducted by JAnicA , the average monthly salary for an animator in their 20s is around ￥90,000, making the yearly salary about ￥1,100,000.
It is not uncommon that the monthly salary for the first year animator is less than ￥30,000.
The reason why the earnings are drastically low despite of the hard labor, overtime work, and long working hours, is because in most cases, animators are hired and paid according to the piece-work system.
Sure, that's about animators but I'd expect that it's not much better for the small fishes involved in the creation of the manga either.
1 ( +2 / -1 )
Never was an American. Born in Japan to Japanese and Jamaican parents. You don’t have to be a US citizen to live in the US.
The Washington Post, October 10, 2019 (https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/2019/10/10/tennis-star-naomi-osaka-gives-up-her-us-citizenship-play-japan-tokyo-olympics/)
Tennis star Naomi Osaka gives up her U.S. citizenship to play for Japan in Tokyo Olympics
Naomi Osaka, the 2018 U.S. Open champion and the world’s third-ranked tennis player, will give up her U.S. citizenship to represent Japan in the Summer Olympics next year in Tokyo.
Osaka, whose mother is Japanese and father is Haitian, was born in Japan but moved with her family to New York when she was 3. Under Japan’s Nationality Act, those who hold dual citizenship must choose one before their 22nd birthday. Osaka turns 22 on Wednesday.
2 ( +2 / -0 )
mikeylikesit, you probably missed the part about Gunkanjima where South Korea gave approval since the Japanese representatives promised to tell the whole story. Right after the approval they then went back on their word leading to the UNESCO committee requesting them to keep their promise. I doubt Korea would be against making the mines a World Heritage Site if the whole story were to be told. But as they showed with Gunkanjima they'll likely only share part of history with visitors, so you can hardly blame South Korea for their stance.
4 ( +17 / -13 )
I absolutely hate writing on this website using my phone...
"... incomplete vaccination is 17 greater than for elderly with three doses." Why doesn't it say that if two doses equal incomplete vaccination?
1 ( +1 / -0 )
Why not quote the whole sentences?
“We see that the people who are being hospitalized are those who either weren’t vaccinated or didn’t finish the three doses, who have comorbidities,”
The part with the three doses is obviously about those with comorbidities.
Of those hospitalized in Rio de Janeiro state, 88% haven’t completed their vaccination program, according to the press office of the state’s health secretariat.
Again looks different from what you claim.
“The chance of hospitalization for someone elderly with incomplete vaccination is 17 times greater than for elderly people with two doses or three doses.”
That quite clearly contradicts what you claimed also. According to you the sentence should read "...incomplete vaccination is 17 greater than for elderly
2 ( +3 / -1 )
Since the article isn't up to date, here some missing information:
the victim mentioned in the article was a 23 year old woman who succumbed to her injuries
the perpreator was a 18 year old student at the university, German and living in Mannheim
he did not have a firearms license and bought the shotgun not long ago abroad and still had more than 100 shells in his backpack
he did write someone on WhatsApp that "people have to be punished" and also that he wishes for a burial at sea
there are three other victims that have been injured on the leg, back and face
1 ( +1 / -0 )
Sorry this is a little long its from Wiki. Yeah, they're definitely getting screwed.
Not exactly. Both The Washington Post (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/07/08/are-us-womens-soccer-players-really-earning-less-than-men/) and the Los Angeles Times (https://www.latimes.com/sports/soccer/newsletter/2021-09-21/us-soccer-equal-pay-soccer) have published articles on this topic back in July 2019(Washington Post) and September 2021(LA Times). So both articles were published after they sued the federation. First of all the women negiotiated their own collective bargaining agreements with the federation and it differs quite a lot from the men's agreement.
From the LA Times:
On a per-game basis, male players can earn more per national team appearance and victory than the women. But per the respective CBAs, the women in the national team pool, after rejecting a pay-to-play structure similar to one in the men’s contract, agreed to a lower per-game bonus in exchange for an annual salary and benefits the men do not get. As a result, most women on the national team receive more per year from the federation than their male counterparts, especially since the men missed out on a World Cup bonus in 2018.
So the women actually rejected a similar pay structure and decided to forgo higher bonuses in favor of a base salary. The men have another structure where they don't receive a base salary and only earn bonuses.
Under the current CBA, most women in the national team pool are guaranteed a base salary of $100,000 plus up to another $99,000 for playing in the National Women’s Soccer League, the domestic league that U.S. Soccer subsidizes. That means the federation pays the top 16 players in the national team pool $199,000 plus benefits in addition to bonuses for being called into training camp, whether they play in the game or not.
The men, in their CBA, get no salary or benefits from U.S. Soccer — most are paid handsomely by their club teams — and must dress for a national team game to get paid. Equal treatment, then, could mean the loss of a guaranteed salary and benefits for the women.
The last time the men played in a World Cup, in 2014, making the roster was worth $55,000 per man, Peterson reported, and the players split part of a $4.3 million bonus for making the knockout round, with each player earning about $187,000.
The women split $862,500 for making the roster for the 2019 World Cup, then split part of another $2.53 million for winning the tournament, with each player earning $147,500.
So not only do they get a base salary of $100,000 but several will also receive more for playing in the National Women's Soccer League that is subsidized.
The total pool for prize money in the men's tournament was $400 million in 2018 while the pool for the women was $30 million in 2019. The winner of the men's tournament made more than all the women's teams together ($38 million; the winner of the women's tournament won about $4 million).
There is simply more money to be made with the men's tournament, so the prize money is much higher. If you distribute their share of the prize money it is quite obvious that they would receive more.
From the Washington Post article:
The Fact Checker obtained the new agreement, which took effect in April 2017. Using the same 20-game scenario, we calculated the player on the women’s team would earn $28,333 less, or about 89 percent of the compensation of a similarly situated men’s team player. If both teams lost all 20 games, the players would make the same amount. That’s because the men earn a $5,000 bonus when they lose and the women have a $100,000 base salary.
I went back as far as 2015 and apart from 2021 (22 games) the men's team has never played more than 20 games per year (several times even far less). From what I can tell the women's team usually plays more games per year and therefore has actually more chances to earn additional money.
It all actually comes down to the agreement they themselves negotiated and the fact that in tournaments there is more money to be made on the men's side.
0 ( +0 / -0 )
Well, it's not really surprising. I don't know how much the situation has changed over the years but you just have to look back at the articles on this topic from the last few years to see the problems.
An article by Kyodo from June 2017
Discrepancies in Japanese eel catches suggest poaching, underreporting
Nearly half of juvenile Japanese eels farmed in the country may have been illegally caught, according to a Kyodo News survey. The Japanese eel is an endangered species.
The survey, released Wednesday, found that 45.45 percent of young eels caught in Japan between November 2016 and April 2017 may have lacked prefectural authorization or were underreported.
But it is not only affecting the Japanese eel. Back in 2013 Japan consumed more than 70% of the global catch. Like this article pointed out at least in the past the way eels found their way to Japan has at least been questionable.
Again Kyodo March 2019
80% of young eels farmed in Japan may have been smuggled from Taiwan via Hong Kong
About 80 percent of young eels put into aquaculture pools in Japan in December and January may have been smuggled from Taiwan via Hong Kong, according to trade data and sources close to the matter.
Around 6 tons of juvenile eels were imported to Japan from Hong Kong in those two months, according to government data, but Hong Kong does not engage in eel fishing, raising suspicions about their origin. Industry observers say most may have been illegally brought from Taiwan, which bans eel exports.
There was also an editorial in 2019 on The Japan Times on that topic
Musing over the sustainability of eel consumption
The annual domestic catch of juvenile eels, which stood around 50 tons in the late 1970s, has been on a long-term decline. During the latest season (from last November to May), the catch was a mere 3.7 tons — less than half the previous season and only 13 percent of the 27.5 tons caught in 2006, which was the largest catch on record since the Fisheries Agency started collecting the relevant data in 2003.
As a consequence, many of the juvenile eels used for domestic cultivation this season were imported, and imported juvenile eels — whose cross-border trade has incurred suspicions of smuggling and poaching due to its lack of transparency — plays a large part in consumption in Japan. In contrast to the poor domestic catch, juvenile eel imports reached 11.5 tons, the second-largest on record. About 75 percent of the juvenile eel placed in aquaculture ponds in Japan were reportedly imported from Hong Kong, but Hong Kong is not engaged in the farming of juvenile eels, leading experts and environmental groups to suspect that the eels were in fact smuggled from Taiwan — which prohibits the export of juvenile eels — via Hong Kong.
Authorities in the European Union also suspect that young European eels — whose export outside of the bloc is prohibited — are poached and smuggled in growing numbers and that many of the eels end up in the Japanese market after being raised in Chinese aquaculture ponds.
And in the end part will be thrown away since they reach their best-by date.
Kyodo June 2018
At least 2.7 tons of broiled eel, including an endangered Japanese species, was thrown away by the nation’s retailers last year, Greenpeace Japan said Monday, citing the results of a survey.
It is customary to eat grilled or fried eel in late July in hope of beating the summer heat, and the practice is extensively advertised during this special sales promotion period.
According to the Greenpeace survey, a large amount of cooked eel was disposed of mainly because it had reached its best-by date.
The environmental group conducted the survey from last September through January, contacting 18 eel retailers, 16 of which responded.
The group said disposal was confirmed by at least 10 retailers, including Aeon Co. and Maruetsu Inc.
Life Corp replied that the amount of its disposed eel was “nearly zero.”
Only five companies disclosed the volume of dumped eel, amounting to a gross weight of 2.73 tons, equivalent to about 13,650 eels.
Only two retailers out of the 16 that replied — Pal System and Yaoko Co. — said they did not dispose of any eel, while Seiyu GK, a Japanese subsidiary of Walmart Inc., gave an answer of “nondisclosure.”
0 ( +0 / -0 )
“There were other people on the train who witnessed this horrific act, and it may have been stopped sooner if a rider called 911," the authority said.
That's what baffles me the most in such situations. I won't judge people for being too afraid to intervene (especially since it is not always possible without putting yourself into danger) but at least call the police...
2 ( +2 / -0 )
Jim, can you please cite your source that the Mu strain is "highly resistant to vaccines"?
Weekly epidemiological update on COVID-19 - 31 August 2021 from the WHO (https://www.who.int/publications/m/item/weekly-epidemiological-update-on-covid-19---31-august-2021)
Based on the latest round of assessments, B.1.621 was classified as a VOI on 30 August 2021 and given the WHO label “Mu”. This includes the descendent Pango lineage B.1.621.1. This variant is known as 21H in Nextstrain nomenclature. The Mu variant has a constellation of mutations that indicate potential properties of immune escape. Preliminary data presented to the Virus Evolution Working Group show a reduction in neutralization capacity of convalescent and vaccinee sera similar to that seen for the Beta variant, but this needs to be confirmed by further studies.
So at least right now there is no data that says that it is highly resistant to vaccines, but its mutations point towards potential properties of immune escape.
3 ( +3 / -0 )
You think bad, Japan is in 5th place worldwide in vaccination and has applied more than 110M of vaccines, with an average of more than 1,300,000 daily vaccinations, besides Japan goverment plans to accelerate their vaccination rate.. Do a better research before creating more drama. ;)
Yup, 5th place behind Qatar (66.27% fully vaccinated, 11% partly), Singapore (71.26% fully, 5.79% partly), Portugal (64.75% fully, 11.51% partly), Uruguay (69.35% fully, 6.25% partly), Denmark (65.99% fully, 8.85% partly), Chile (68.15% fully, 6.19% partly), Spain (63.72% fully, 10.53% partly), Canada (64.22% fully, 8.47% partly), Belgium (66.05% fully, 5.48% partly), Ireland (62.44% fully, 8.75% partly), UK (59.96% fully, 9.77% partly), France (52.58% fully, 15.83% partly), Italy (57.24% fully, 10.25% partly), Germany (57.08% fully, 5.79% partly), US (50.44% fully, 9.03% partly), Brazil (24.06% fully, 33.25% partly), Turkey (39.29% fully, 13.10% partly)...should I go on? Sure, in Japan a higher percentage of the population is fully vaccinated compared to Brazil for instance but that also means that a bigger part of the population has no protection at all. Also this is only part of the countries that have vaccinated a bigger percentage of its population than Japan. If you add more places like Austria, Cambodia or the Dominican Republic, you'll have even more countries with better numbers.
Like Fuzzy pointed out what matters is the vaccination rate per capita and not volume of doses. Or do you expect a country like Spain with a population of less than 50 million to deliver as many shots as Japan does?
Compared to countries like Chile Japan does have the advantage that they didn't use the vaccine from China though, so I guess it's their win there...
2 ( +2 / -0 )