> folks still win the lottery, and you’re more likely to get struck by lightning than win the powerball jackpot
I'm more likely to get struck by lightning than win the lottery, sure. But it's much more likely that someone wins the lottery this week (~100% in fact) than that someone gets struck by lightning this week.
Edit: my point about independence of events still stands, but it turns out people get struck by lightning amazingly often. The chance of someone in the world getting struck by lightning this week seems to be about 99%!
> it's much more likely that someone wins the lottery this week (~100% in fact) than that someone gets struck by lightning this week
No it isn’t? Not only are the individual odds of winning the lottery lower than the individual odds of being struck by lightning, but far more people are exposed to lightning on a weekly basis than participate in any given lottery.
You can buy thousands of lottery tickets and it won't meaningfully impact your odds of winning though. You can also go stand outside in a field with a metal rod in your hand during a thunderstorm. "You" isn't really the point, it's the cumulative probabilities that matter. For lotteries this is easy to calculate, for lightning strikes the best you can do is probably looking at past statistics.
Right, but the population of people who buy lottery tickets often do buy more than one lottery ticket, so even if the number of people buying lottery tickets divided by the per ticket chance to win is smaller than the number of people divided by the chance of being hit by lightning, the overall chance of anyone winning the lottery can be higher than the overall chance of anyone getting hit by lightning for the same period.
That’s not true either though - someone eventually always wins the lottery, someone eventually always gets struck by lightning. The latter usually happens before the former.
When a lottery happens, there is always a winner, that's how they work. When there is a lightning, it doesn't always strike a human. The former is (almost) guaranteed to happen, barring something out of the ordinary, while the latter usually doesn't happen, but does happen sometimes.
> When a lottery happens, there is always a winner, that's how they work.
It's possible this is a language and cultural thing, but most (possibly all?) state run lotteries in the United States don't work this way - they simply pick numbers from a pool at random and if no one has selected those exact numbers the prize pool rolls over to the next week. Powerball (afaik the largest US based lottery) works by selecting 5 numbers from a pool of 1-69, and one number from a pool of 1-26, if no one matches all six numbers then the primary prize pool carries into the next drawing. There's no guarantee anyone wins the jackpot on any given week, and often multiple weeks and sometimes months will pass with no winner, ballooning the jackpot further.
I'd more often refer to what you're saying as a "drawing" or a "sweepstakes" where tickets are sold and the winning ticket is selected from the pool of all tickets sold, but that's distinctly different to a "lottery" for me.
Which part of the text "You can get DeCSS from http://lemuria.org/~tom/DeCSS/" on a website constitutes distribution of "technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof" ?
Judge Kaplan very likely went beyond what the law allows, in issuing the injunction against Eric Corley for even _adding a hyperlink_ to the DeCSS code on his website.
However, we don't know this for sure, because Corley did not take this to the Supreme Court. There is a chance that the SCOTUS would have accepted the case, and found that neither a hyperlink to computer source code, nor computer source code itself, constitutes "technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof"... but at the same time, maybe they wouldn't accept it, and maybe they would but it'd cost a lot of money Corley didn't have to see the case through. So who knows? Corley seemed satisfied enough that, even though he was personally enjoined from linking to DeCSS, it nonetheless spread like wildfire all over the world, and DVDs were effectively copyable from that day forward.
No, gas combustion doesn't generate any significant amount of particles.
It produces CO2, NO2 and some CO. But it's not going to show anything on a PM2.5 meter.
The particles when frying come from the oil turning into smoke, as well as just aerosolization even well below the smoke point. These are what send PM2.5 levels skyrocketing.
When I sear a steak in cast iron, my PM2.5 levels go from their baseline of ~2 ug/m^3 to ~200–400. And course you can smell it in the air.
Gas combustion absolutely contributes to poorer air quality but I would argue that actually cooking (not what’s happening in this test) is much worse. Heating oil and cooking proteins will quickly fill a house. If you can smell it, the air quality has been reduced.
