Those poor children, the victims. Lets take a quick look at a few of the stories on the front pages. It isa it is a varied bunch. The Daily Telegraph, the secrets of how five tory mps were felled, from a memoir. The mirror celebrates the life of Sven Goran Eriksson, the former england manager, whose funeral was today with David Beckham one of the guests. The times looks at the story, Volodymyr Zelensky, putin burns our city as west delays. The plea from Volodymyr Zelensky to allow. Any computer has died and i will have to read it from here. The ft, I Cant read it. An economic story on ft weekend. The Daily Express Prime Minister, please keep promise to change cruel law. Relating to assisted dying and the campaign to bring in assisted dying, Ester Ra Ntzen campaign to bring in assisted dying, Ester Rantzen has said. A surge in uk private Health Care as people turn from the nhs. Those are the papers. You can get tomorrow. Thank you to everyone who has come on the show. Alison, john and e
Premise of the question, yes, google was Hiding Information from its users, he effectively conceded. It was for their own good. According to feinberg, google didnt want to lead people down pathways that we would not find to be authoritative information. Authoritative information. Youve heard that phrase a lot in the last year. Authoritative information is the opposite of misinformation, or disinformation, or worse, a conspiracy theory. Its really important. All you are allowed to see is authoritative information. Its worth knowing and this and many other cases, what is it . In this case, where did google get the authoritative information . In this case, they got that information from a group led by a noted man of science, the name sounds familiar, he almost singlehandedly stopped all public speculation about the lab leak early in the pandemic. They did this in one swoop by organizing a letter to the land, standing as a known fact, there was no possibility of this virus, the coronavirus
Premise of the question, yes, google was Hiding Information from its users, he effectively conceded. It was for their own good. According to feinberg, google didnt want to lead people down pathways that we would not find to be authoritative information. Authoritative information. Youve heard that phrase a lot in the last year. Authoritative information is the opposite of misinformation, or disinformation, or worse, a conspiracy theory. Its really important. All you are allowed to see is authoritative information. Its worth knowing and this and many other cases, what is it . In this case, where did google get the authoritative information . In this case, they got that information from a group led by a noted man of science, the name sounds familiar, he almost singlehandedly stopped all public speculation about the lab leak early in the pandemic. They did this in one swoop by organizing a letter to the land, standing as a known fact, there was no possibility of this virus, the coronavirus
Premise of the question, yes google was Hiding Informationhe from its users, he effectively conceded. It was for their own good. According to feinberg, google didnt want to lead people down pathways that we would not find to be authoritative information. Authoritative information. Youve heard that phrase a lot in the last year. Authoritative information is the opposite of misinformation, or disinformation, or worse, a conspiracy theory. Its really important. All you are allowed to see is authoritative information. Its worth knowing in this and many w other cases, what is it . In this case, where did google get the authoritative information . In this case, they got that information from a group led byo a noted man of science, the nama sounds familiar, he almost singlehandedly stopped all public speculation about the lab leak early in the pandemic. He did this in one swoop bye organizing a letter to the Land Standing as a known fact, there was no possibility of this virus, the coronaviru
Qualified expert to weigh in on gj hypothetical past condition. Next[aqwqd slide please. First the screening analysis show the project was likely going to exceed the air district of ten excess cancers per million. Even if it wasnt an air pollution exposure zone given it is in such a zone, the cumulative affect adding the excess cancer risk caused by the project to the already elevated cancer risk is going to be a cumulative impact. All of the inputs protocols an out puts are in the file. He did it twice. Assuming that best why was still there and another assuming it wasnt. Next slide please. You have about two minutes left. Thank you. That just shows you the sources of emissions he looked at the parking lot. Loading dock and the street where the trucks are going to go leading up to that location. Next slide. Heres what he found. The health risk is significant even if you assume best buy is still there. He found output. 25 extra cancers beyond. You can see down here on farrell street th