Something being possible at some point in the future is doesn't make claiming to be able to do it now any less of a lie. Doing the testing they claimed to be able to do, with the size of device they claimed, in the time they claimed - with the tiny amount of blood was in fact impossible at the time.

I'm not sure how the rollout compares state by state & could be that my state (Wisconsin) is really that far out in front of the rest of the country, but we're really already there in scheduling. You've been very easily able to check & select which vaccine you wanted for at last least a week, probably more. As far back as I got my first shot (March 23) I was able to see which one I was registering for (at a grocery store pharmacy). And now the big clinics are doing it by days of the week. As of the middle of this week, places are advertising wide open, walk-in availability.

On one hand, this is a sign that they did a good job on rollout. On the other - it's also a sign that we've reached the point where the vast majority of people who want the vaccine have already gotten it & we're to the uncertain or "no way" people now.

It's really not an apples to apples when comparing the calculated efficacy numbers of the trials because they were done in different environments. Not just the different locations in the different trials and that the variants were more prevalent during the J&J trial, but perhaps the biggest issue at all was the timing of the trials. The Pfizer & Moderna trials were done earlier - when the virus was much less prevalent in the trial population. J&J was done later when there was greater exposure. All three are extremely effective at preventing major illness. And all three are quite good at preventing infection. If a study were done in the same environment, it seems very likely that there would still be a gap in efficacy, but that it would also be very likely that the gap would be less than the 90 vs 66 percent.

Reports? I've seen a number of people saying suicides are up but I don't think any of the ones I saw actually had any reports with factual data. The article links to an actual report on the Journal of American Medicine Association. What have you got?

Your mental health comment reminded me... I do a ton of coaching of youth & HS sports. It's been very amusing to hear the same people argue how important it is to open schools and allow sports - for the mental health of the kids - while I know full well that in any other situation, if concern for the mental health of the kids/players were mentioned, they'd say "toughen up & stop being a snowflake" or similar. I guess there's something positive about arriving at a better place even if it's not necessarily coming from a great process.

It's not just education, it's really larger than that. It's how common/acceptable it's become to dismiss intelligence as opposed to ignorance...or at least simplification to the extreme. Beyond the anti-academic/credentials view, it's a disregard for professionalism - just such little respect for the premise that people who dedicate their lives to something tend to know that subject much better than those who don't.

Also - car accidents and smokers don't overwhelm hospitals the way this virus is. Ultimately, in addition to the direct deaths, in many places there has been/will be a significant number of deaths due to countless other things (including car accidents and smoking, but any other condition that requires ICU or ventilators) because there aren't enough people or equipment to service everyone.

There's no reason that Microsoft (and Adobe for that matter) couldn't make a boatload of money selling versions of their apps for Linux. So why don't they? Corruption.

It's good that they're fining Facebook for tracking users without telling them, albeit with a slap on the wrist, but it would be nice if the laws also had fines for tracking non-users without telling them.

What I think is daft is the insinuation that people will like these things, therefore they are bad. I don't particularly see the point of these things, but saying 'This is a terrible idea!' while at the same time saying 'People will use these so much that small stores will go out of business' are contradictory statements. If people want these, they'll use them. If people don't, then they will not be replacing anything. Which is it, are they horrible, or are they going to be welcomed? It can't be both.

This sounds like a bunch of attention seekers desperate for some relevance at someone else's expense, with some vague accusations of 'cultural appropriation' (that thing that every single human society has been doing since forever) thrown in for good measure, and while at the same time attempting to absolve themselves of any responsibility for their purchasing choices, because apparently when you vote with your dollars you are not responsible for what you're buying. The over-glorified vending machines are a bit silly, but why is anyone paying attention to what these detractors think?

Metro also works on this principle.

I have a very hard time believing that. I can't speak to the quality of Harvard's education because I've never stepped foot in the place, but I've met a few people who went to those so-called 'elite schools.' They didn't seem any better or worse than those of us who could not afford the feeder schools, extracurricular activities, and other elements of institutionalized classism. The only difference I could tell was that they had nicer clothes and more expensive hobbies. Pardon me if I am highly skeptical of the claim that there's anything special going on there beyond networking and brand recognition, but I for one would much rather work with an Iowa State grad than someone from Harvard. At least I know which one has the ability to justly earn their position.

I wonder what the exchange rate for Woppercoin to Chuck E. Cheese tickets is?

Swapping out the battery back entirely makes little sense for passenger cars but for long haul trucks it makes perfect sense. Instead of recharging stations trucks could swing through, drop their battery and pick up a fully charged replacement.

I prefer that psychos who hijack planes, hold the passengers hostage with a bomb threat, and manage to make off with $200k in ransom money get caught and brought to justice. Isn't that what the law is supposed to do?