Comment Re:And you know what???? (Score 1) 73
Prove that bugs have emotions, then we can stop hearing about eating bugs.
I wonder how they would react if it turns out that in their own ideology eating plants should be stopped too.
Prove that bugs have emotions, then we can stop hearing about eating bugs.
I wonder how they would react if it turns out that in their own ideology eating plants should be stopped too.
Although the Supreme Court interprets the constitution, the Supreme Court is not the constitution
By being the ultimate interpreter of the Constitution, if the Supreme Court helds that anonymous speech is protected by the First Amendment, it is.
In this matter there is no discussion: the Supreme Court has repeatedly held such interpretation, e.g. McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm'n:
The freedom to publish anonymously is protected by the First Amendment
That being said, the constitution lists rights that are protected by the US federal government and of course the US government has no authority in other countries.
But the US goverment can still act outside of the US, so the question is "when it does, it's still bound to the constitution"? The answer is clearly "yes", see e.g. Boumediene v. Bush:
The federal government is subject to the Constitution even when it acts outside U.S. borders.
I will always fight for freedom of speech for Americans; we do not need freedom of speech for Russians and Iranians and Hamas.
Except the Constitution actually does not distinguish between citizens and non-citizens in respect to freedom of speech.
But it does prove that it's nonsense, and not worth figuring out if she's right or wrong.
Even assuming her being "batshit crazy" is a fact, it would not prove her work is nonsense, nor what its "worth" is. That's fundamentally why ad-hominem is a fallacious argument and why it's not enough to discredit the character of someone to also discredit the substance of their arguments or positions.
I'll bet you argue with jokes from stand-up comics, too, and yell at the television when you're watching reruns of cop shows from the 70s.
Grown ups have better things to do than give a damn about moonbats.
So to summarize your position, the answer is "No, I don't have anything substantial that I can or want to present against her work, I think she's crazy and that's enough to automatically dismiss anything she did without even looking". It kinda sounds like a very dumb position and that's because it is.
If you want to talk about what "grown ups" do, get rid of ad-hominen arguments and learn to argue properly first. I have read her Complaint and I know that most of it is BS and the reason it's BS has nothing to do with her character. Of her research I have read nothing and I cannot comment, but similarly whether it's good work or not has nothing to do with her character.
It was sold as "safe and effective".
What does effective mean to the general public if not "make me immune to Covid and not spread it to other people"?
I perfectly understand vaccines are never 100% and often have side effects but that's not the message delivered to the public.
Here the information about vaccines was extremely clear and when you got one you had to sign a form clearly stating the potential risks and wait for 30 minutes after the vaccine for potential side-effects before leaving.
About effectiveness... this is basically a flu vaccine and flu vaccines are nothing new and tons of people had them before COVID even happened. That they are not 100% effective is common knowledge for most people since they have direct experience with something similar. That the vaccine doesn't need to be 100% effective to be useful is also common knowledge due to the aforementioned experience.
Furthermore, the vaccine, or even masks, still being useful even without 100% effectiveness is something that can easily explained: a seatbelt won't always save you from a crash, but it surely helps. They might not 100% effective at protecting you, but still better to wear them than not since the pros far outweigh the cons.
She's a Harvard academic. That, along, is conclusive proof that she's batshit crazy.
That still does not prove she's wrong or her research is low quality.
Do you have anything substantial against her work beside ad-hominem insinuations?
So if they've decided to remove this apparently useful proxy, I assume they will now start tracking all those factors for which race was providing a proxy? Because, if not, this is going to make cardiac care worse for members of those races - not better.
They tried to incorporate some of the underlying factors, but acknowledge the new approach is currently limited:
However, despite interest in inclusion of measures that more directly reflect risk related to racism (eg, residential segregation, perceived racial discrimination) and additional individual- and place-based measures of social drivers (eg, income, education, residential green space), the lack of standardized assessment and capture in data sources was a key limitation. Therefore, although the PREVENT equations represent a critical step forward, integration of the social deprivation index is only a first step; the inclusion of relevant measures that represent individual experiences of discrimination, structural and systemic racism, and individual- and place-based SDOH should be a priority in risk prediction moving forward.
You can't appeal to science when it comes to race because science says there is no such thing. HTH, HAND
This is the reason given to exclude race as documented in their statement:
Because race is a social construct and an historically fraught proxy representing various lived experiences, there is the potential for the harmful interpretation that it represents a biological risk factor when included in risk prediction, which may result in race-specific treatment decisions. Therefore, it was decided a priori not to include race as a predictor in the development of PREVENT and to use the recently developed race-free equations for eGFR on the basis of serum creatinine (CKD-EPI 2021 [Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration]).
This means race was not excluded because it does not contribute to better evaluate the risk prediction, but to avoid potential "misinterpretations". They even recognize that there are indeed disparities:
In this regard, it is important to note that there continue to be disparities in CVD risk factors and CVD incidence, with Black individuals having higher levels and rates, respectively.
So if you are black, your risk prediction *should* be calculated higher, because that's the reality of things. They decided to remove it to try to include some of the underlying reasons that they believe cause that higher risk, but they also acknowledge at the moment this approach is potentially lacking:
However, despite interest in inclusion of measures that more directly reflect risk related to racism (eg, residential segregation, perceived racial discrimination) and additional individual- and place-based measures of social drivers (eg, income, education, residential green space), the lack of standardized assessment and capture in data sources was a key limitation. Therefore, although the PREVENT equations represent a critical step forward, integration of the social deprivation index is only a first step; the inclusion of relevant measures that represent individual experiences of discrimination, structural and systemic racism, and individual- and place-based SDOH should be a priority in risk prediction moving forward.
Why is "checking in to a hotel" transacting with the administration?
Because the administration would be able to identify you through an online service and would allow for that identification to happen in an authoritative and standardized way.
In case you don't realize it, "contactless check-in" is actually a thing nowadays.
Anonymity was never an option in most cases: if you want to access some services you need to identify yourself first.
Most European countries already have identity documents: this is merely the digital version of them which would allow for accessing services online in a consistent manner.
Then again, it's really the whole "independent contractor" thing that makes DoorDash less like Uber and such. Because the drivers can look over the orders and decide independently what orders they want to take.
That's fine, but it's not a tip then, it's a bid.
So, the left has in a few short decades gone from "I may not agree with your opinion, but I'll fight to the death for your right to express it!" to "Respect my authoritaiii!"
Which "left"? The authority in question was established during Trump's presidency as far as I understand.
"Lies are countered." And who decides what are "lies?"
I swear to fuck, you people have no sense whatsoever.
The authority explicitly empowered to do so? It's not a new concept either as not all "lies" are a matter of personal opinion. As example, in a defamation lawsuit your personal opinion of what is a "lie" is irrelevant: there is an authority which decides on the matter which is the jury and their opinion is what matters.
The question here is whether such a governmental authority is necessary and which processes are or need to be implemented to ensure that the "finder of facts" role they play is fair and unbiased.
They aren't opposites, and your dichotomy is false. If you aspire to equality when things are unequal, one side may (and probably will) need special treatment.
The issue is aspiring to equality in the first place when there is abundant evidence that given free choice, male and female tend to have different aspiration and priorities in their lives, including their careers.
I'm also very skeptical in special treatment for a group of people when most choices (like hiring) are fundamentally not based on the group but the individual. Some women might suffer discrimination and face or have faced unequal opportunities due to that, but a specific woman candidate up for hiring might not.
Top Ten Things Overheard At The ANSI C Draft Committee Meetings: (5) All right, who's the wiseguy who stuck this trigraph stuff in here?
