...he says, quoting a malpractice lawyer of all things. By that ludicrous number, one in 680 Americans are killed by doctors each year. If you live to the age of 75, your odds of dying this way would be 1 in 9.
Plenty of people get bad treatment, sure, but you can't make me believe that one in 9 will actually die of it. That would make malpractice nearly as deadly as cancer, and that's just not plausible.
The people you're describing drive me insane. We have a pediatrician who said what you did: either you trust her to recommend vaccinations, or you find someone else to work with. She doesn't want patients who continually argue against everything she says.
Here's a test. You know all those godless communist governments that want to take over America and sap our precious bodily fluids? They don't have profits, right, because they hate our freedoms. They also don't care about their disposable citizens. Right? OK. So why is it that those countries vaccinate their citizens? It's not for the profit motive of drug companies, because those are owned by the evil socialists. It's because they cheap out and practice preventative medicine so that they can keep working the proles 112 hours a week, and you can't do that when they're sick.
But tossing aside the Fox-news-watcher-ready wrapper, it's true: absent a profit motive, every organized country in the world immunizes their citizens so that they don't get sick as much. Do you really think China gives a crap about GlaxoSmithKline's margins? Hell no. They use vaccines because it's far and away the best possible investment into keeping people healthy.
There is literally no valid greed-based explanation for vaccinations. It's dumb when you consider the American health system, and utterly braindead when you look at the other 95% of the world's population.
The first question is related to how in 1989 Kids up until age 18 received 7 vaccines. [...] Today, it is 72.
You're so full of shit. According to The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, in 1989 the CDC recommended 8 vaccines for kids (the same 7 it recommended through the 70s, plus Hib). The 2010 schedule includes the 8 from 1989 plus hep A (dangerous in kids, lethal in adults), hep B (40% lifetime risk of liver cancer in 95% of newborns who contract it), flu, varicella (not the innocent, cute little illness antivax wingnuts claim it is), pneumococcus (lethal), and rotavirus (potentially lethal).
The evil drug companies took the 8 vaccines from 1989 and added 6 more potentially lethal or crippling diseases, for a total of 14. One-four. Maybe the 72 number is an innocent mistake reflecting the total number of shots, although I sincerely doubt it's that high as DTaP and MMR are each 3 vaccines combined into 1 (as they have been since the early 80s). That narrows it down from 14 to 10 unique vaccinations, and they simply don't take an average of 7 shots each per vaccine.
Yes, I get testy about this. As many times as antivaxers tell me to "do my research!", it seems that none of them can be bothered to.
Google's system will likely penalize tactics like this as not truly "mobile-friendly"
Should have included this, but: They explicitly describe their criteria for a "good" mobile site, which I'm guessing the "mobile sites" that are receiving so much hate don't meet:
Their criteria is not "has a mobile site", their criteria is "site doesn't look like shit when rendered on a mobile device".
It isn't rating a site positively for having a mobile version. It is rating it positively for "not looking like shit on mobile".
It's not just saying "oh this site claims to have a mobile version, great!" or "I don't see a mobile-specific version, ding it in the results!", it's "Does the site render well on mobile?" with various criteria for "renders well on mobile".
If anything it's pretty lenient, in many cases rating sites which people say suck on mobile as "mobile-friendly" - including slashdot.org itself. https://www.google.com/webmast...
I believe that this is what Google's system is doing. It isn't looking for "this site has a specific mobile variant", it's looking for "the site does not suck on a mobile device".
If anything, it's apparently lenient, since most of the comments here say Slashdot is shitty when viewed on a mobile device, but Google's "Mobile-Friendly Test" at https://www.google.com/webmast... ranks slashdot.org as "Mobile Friendly"
"Instead" doesn't apply here... SINCE THAT IS WHAT THEY ARE DOING.
Not really. With a few exceptions, circuit boards are thin. Very few manufacturers use 3D techniques (daughterboards, etc.) especially not in mobile.
So "larger circuit board" means "more area but rarely thicker".
"more area at same thickness" means "wider/taller device"
"wider/taller device" means "more room for battery".
They're "horrible" but they are, sadly, the best now that TI has exited the business.
MTK is notorious for giving their customers C&D letters when they dare to comply with the GPL (Google is cracking down on this with Android One, but I know of at least one non-One device that had its kernel sources C&Ded by MTK.)
Rockchip and company are no better
Samsung publishes no reference source that matches any production devices (I speak from experience here - back in 2012/2013 I was one of the CyanogenMod co-maintainers for Samsung Exynos4 devices. Every member of the team got sick of dealing with Samsung's crap and lack of documentation, we all switched to Qualcomm)
Nvidia was horrible but have improved a lot with the SHIELD family of devices, although I dislike their approach to AOSP support. They have a lot of closed-source binary HALs (just like Samsung) but at least don't hack the interfaces of those HALs in ways that break compatibility with AOSP. Unfortunately this means that if you find an issue with the HAL (such as not supporting AC3 passthrough) there's nothing you can do about it.
Qualcomm is no angel (see the Nexus 4 and Nexus 7 factory image messes), but with their CAF reference sources, they're better than anyone else currently in the business about software support.
"If I do not want others to quote me, I do not speak." -- Phil Wayne
