Nonsense. He knows what he sees in his work. He wasn't making an epidemiological statement, he was making an observational one: the TB cases he was seeing were disproportionately illegal immigrants. Observation is not necessarily "observational bias."

No, I just assume he's an expert on the characteristics of his patients and their diseases, because that's his job.

He worked at a free clinic, and was speaking from personal experience. I don't think a doctor has to be an epidemiologist in order to note what he sees.

Are you sure? A few years ago when I was rather ill I went to a doctor who decided I needed a chest X-ray to rule out tuberculosis, which he described as (IIRC) "common" in San Francisco. I expressed surprise, and he said it was due to illegal immigration. Of course, it might have been due to illegal immigration from Honduras, Guatemala, etc., but most illegals around here are from Mexico.

Earth to AC: The "California Regulators" mentioned in the first two words of the headline are not Republicans.

Another way the Chinese evade censorship is to use oblique terms and references, many of which are quite funny. The Grass-Mud Horse Lexicon is a compilation of them. (In Mandarin, "grass-mud horse" sounds very close to "fuck your mother" and is a way of evading and poking fun at censorship of vulgar content.)

Wrong. Tablet sales are down overall, not just Apple's (though a few minor brands are up a little).

Indeed. In fact her statement "when it runs into something, it doesn't hurt that much" is oddly ignorant: your vehicle running into something is part of the issue, but something running into you is the other part. You do not want to be in a "tiny bubble" when a truck or SUV or bus hits you.

I totally agree, but there's an important aspect that's unspoken. It's politically useful for the SJW (social justice warrior) types to group and stereotype men (at the same time they protest against stereotyping women and minorities). Their ideology depends on "group justice," a.k.a. "collective guilt," a fallacious concept because it destroys true (individual) justice. They want the state to do more than use true individual justice to solve individual problems as they arise. They want to remake society, and seek to do that by inventing concepts like "rape culture" and trying to elevate favored groups and denigrate unfavored groups, individual justice be damned.

Oh, please, not this "men depict women in unrealistic ways" trope again. It absolutely cuts both ways. Look at the covers of romance novels, every photo of a man in an ad in a women's magazine, the men in daytime soap operas, and pretty much in any other female-oriented media: do you see a lot of homely, short, overweight, and/or bald guys? No, you do not. Even the old guys are in shape and not bald. There is just as much "unrealistic," "sex object," under-representation of normal men in media aimed at women.

Not only that, but blaming (straight) men for women's body image issues is also bull. Straight men do not control women's fashion and the media that lives off of it.

You are not the first person to suspect that. From the link:

Really? Huh. Based on what happened to Brendan Eich, I thought their job was to promote same-sex marriage.

Dude, your comment reads like it's from the late '90s. Since then, Microsoft has been largely stagnant, their tablet and phone offerings largely a failure, the "inevitable" Windows monopoly doesn't look so inevitable any more, and OS X's share has grown. Macbooks are a very large percent of laptop sales, even to enterprise, and if you count tablets as computers, Apple's worldwide market share is about 19.5%, bigger than HP and Dell combined. Not to mention Apple getting the lion's share of profits.

So it looks like vertical structure is doing pretty well. As for mobile, sure, lots of Android phones are being sold, many (most?) to people who are entering the smartphone market. But more people are switching from Android to Apple than the other way around, so despite the drop in smartphone market share, Apple is quite well-positioned to continue growing.

True, that's not too bad, but an obligation to keep any records at all is still not really about "rights."

That's part of it, but there's more. The topic is called regulatory capture. An inherent problem in all regulation is that those being regulated have a vested interest in "capturing" the regulators and influencing them for their own interests. It's often not as simple as bribery or a promise of a future job. It can be (and often is) things like convincing regulators that certain kinds of regulation are great ideas, regulations that 1) make the regulators think they are doing something, 2) can be easily implemented by that regulated entity, and (entirely coincidentally!) 3) hinder the competitors of the regulated entity. Whenever you read about bankers being in favor of Dodd-Frank, or health insurers being pro-Obamacare, or a large company that supports raising the minimum wage, look for something like #3. Such support does not usually come from the goodness of their hearts.

As pointed out in this thread, who knows the complexity of a set of regulations better than someone who used to be in charge of them? So too much separation between regulators and regulated would be dysfunctional: you don't want carpenters regulating doctors, or vice versa. But the whole field shows some of the inherent problems of all regulations, especially complex ones.