I suspect that it's more symptom than cause, and probably not at the top of the list of causes; but I cannot overstate how much I loathe the hyperbolic use of the term 'unthinkable' in these sorts of situations. Both because it's false; and because it often acquires a sort of implicitly exculpatory implication that is entirely undeserved.

Not only is it 'thinkable'; having something awful happen when you perform a procedure that requires longterm hardcore immunosuppression and then let them follow through the cracks is trivially predictable. It's the expected behavior. Successfully reconnecting a whole ton of little blood vessels and nerves is fairly exotic medicine; predicting that thing will go poorly without substantial follow-up is trivial even by washout premed standards.

This isn't to say that it isn't ghastly, or that I could imagine being in that position; but 'unthinkable' is closer to being a claim of unpredictability or unknowability; which is wholly unwarranted. None of this was unthinkable; but nobody really cared to check or wanted to know all that much.

Corporations or lobbying, take your pick.

Wait until you look up the properties of petrol.

Two additions.

1) Properly fund NASA
2) Stop interfering with NASA

Wait until you look at some old maps.

> Trying to control all sites and strip adults of their privacy

Not what's proposed here - it's just to set the minimum age. There's already a minimum age (13) which was set by the social media companies themselves. Why would you trust their motives for this? Pushing that up to 16 (at least) is probably the right* thing to do.

If the minimum age is moved up, then you give parents a tool to help them hold back the relentless barrage of forces that are trying to get their kids hooked on social media. It doesn't solve everything of course, but it's a tool parents could very much do with.

Once it's changed, if necessary, we can look at enforcement. Then by all means argue about privacy, but that's a different problem to moving the minimum age up.

* "right" depends on your view, I guess. "right" for consumers, kids and parents or "right" for corporates, and where on the scale between the two is up to you.

the hunger by the 1% to remove as much humanity from the workplace is sickening.

they fully know they are destroying the middle and lower classes (even more than they already have).

they, like the R party, just dont care. they think they are rich and insulated enough. they never cared what their own people need. the 'let them eat cake' time has come back again, but even worse.

there will be no thought to social systems needed to support the unemployed (which will be many of us, given enough time).

I'm glad I'm retiring soon. I would not want to compete in a job market that bosses think can be done by computer, alone.

and I would not want to be the 'prompt meister' to try to coax answers from the machines that make sense.

some see a great future with AI. I see nothing but doom and gloom. the greed factor is strong in humans and the class disparity will cause rioting and civil wars.

maybe not wars. the US has created a special police force that is above the law, so any uprisings will EASILY be dealt with. they thought about that. ICE is not just for foreigners. its a general purpose police force answerable only to 1 person.

people, please show me I'm wrong. but all signs point to a very bad future for 95% of the 'thinks for a living' workforce.

We have AI to summarize the AI slop articles.

Isn't Uber still losing money?

Amazon had a plan for profitability, so much so they took on more debt in the early days to scale up. A gamble that paid off because they had a solid plan to begin with, not a "hope the magic beans drop into our laps before we run out of money" type of plan that AI companies have. Uber's business plan was "lets keep doing illegal shit that our competitors cant and just hope we become big enough not to fail".

Erm... that's the whole point of a T&C/EULA/et al. To limit legal liability and as a defence against being sued. Which is one of the reasons most countries do not treat them as binding contracts.

Well, I'm about to find out if I need to do my first chargeback, I have a delayed response on a return authorization for where I was sent the wrong item. They advertised a different version. This might be confusing for them since the difference is small - yet critical. But there really should be no confusion because they advertised the other version both in the images and the product name/listing title.

I'm the same, always use a good credit card, but the occasional hassle is worth it. The prices are 1/10th the Amazon ones.

Used to be, but Trump has kinda ruined it for the rest of us. He complained that they were charging Americans more, so instead of reducing their prices, they just increased them everywhere else.

As an example, Mounjaro went from around £180 in the UK, to around £300.

I saw a YouTube video from a guy who bought a mini excavator from AliExpress: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

It's surprisingly good. Japanese Kubota engine, everything else looks decent quality, especially considering the incredibly low price. I've seen similar videos from other people who bought heavy machinery like farm equipment and lathes.

On the one hand it's a shame that our domestic manufacturing is finding it hard to compete. On the other, they aren't doing themselves any favours with things like DRM to stop you working on your own tools. The price competition is a good thing for consumers.