Article says that they are being given low-skill jobs like mowing and trash collection, in order to free up paid workers to tackle high-skill jobs.

They will be paid a whopping $9 a day for effectively unskilled labour that doesn’t increase their post-release prospects kn any substantive way.

Nope, just an engineer who has seen similar methods fail hilariously when the trying to extrapolate from a limited datasets.

When the only data supplied is opaque guarantees from a private company that profits from enticing more interest in their services, they need to state clearly how they came to make those guarantees.

Yes, the general concept is explained, but not the raw data, or how they come to their “98% certainty” figure.

There are a number of factors that can effect the trace element and isotopes ratios in a crop, and they have made no effort to share what factors they have controlled for.

I would like to see the tests results, and the datasets used to calibrate them before believing them. This entire article shouts “trust us, we did science” without actually sharing any of the results or the methods used to obtain them.

That’s not how science works. Show us your methodology.

Edit: just had a read of the Source Certain website to see if the actual methodology is listed there somewhere, and not only do they have no useful information at all, they claim to use “proprietary science”, aka, not science, because there is no peer review.

Mouse and keyboard is superior to a controller in almost every aspect. There are probably some games or types of games where a controller is more responsive, but I doubt they are the majority. If you have a machine that already has a mouse and keyboard, the market for controllers then becomes restricted to that niche where it actually offers a benefit.