Records only go back to 1895? Why is that? Is that because 1894 was even hotter? Concerned citizens want to know. Wake up sheeple, there's no such thing as climate!
Anyway jokes aside I'm glad this was the "hottest ever". It stops the number of morons who say "but it was hotter that one month 47 years ago and therefore climate change isn't real" and significantly reduces the amount I want to punch people in the face on any given day.
No I don't act that way. If you want to talk about the current medical system than let me heap a whole world of criticism on that broken piece of shit too.
There's one area though where you made an incorrect comparison. The insurance system is fucked and needs to be torn down and rebuilt from the ground up. But the organ transplant example has a different cause: Supply and demand based prioritisation.
The only reason you will "never" have that organ transplant is because there are people who are likely are better able to extend their life with it in front of you on the list. The entire medical system promotes maximising life (the exact opposite of the GP's claim). We don't judge the worth or the wallet of the person getting a transplant, we judge how well the transplant is likely to extend their life. Younger people, healthier people, and non-drug addicted people win here.
If we had more supply of viable organs than even those people you list would receive them.
We don't have a shortage of medicical and care though, we only have pieces of shit who think some humans deserve death because they are too expensive to keep alive.
Do Republican voters keep track of what the administration does? I'm not trolling. I really wonder if there is support for every executive order, or does no one read the news?
Yes, they do. It goes something along the lines of:
Administration: Announcement about
Republican Voters: MUST BE GOOD!
Yes because we had a whole new group of stupid people to deal with in COVID. Countries with a lower population of morons didn't make COVID about choice either. You weren't vaxxed you didn't get to do many things.
Parents shouldn't have a choice about MMR. There's no choice to make. The three are horrible diseases that can cause a painful and completely avoidable death. Having the option of 3 shots won't placate any anti-vaxxers since all three are in fact vaccines, and the normal people (you can read "normal" as pro-vaccination) already realise the benefit of stabbing your kid once instead of 3 times, booking one doctor instead of 3, paying once instead of 3 times.
What "choice" are you promoting here? How much you can torture children who hate needles?
I know EEE very well, and yet publishing something in a store is very much not EEE. The Microsoft store provides no APIs to extend functionality, and has no capability in itself to extinguish any competition.
Virtually everyone who uses the phrase Embrace Extend Extinguish fails to understand there are very specific market conditions that need to exist for that strategy to work. For one, you can't do it on an open ecosystem, you can only do it on a closed one. That's why it worked against Novell, but wouldn't work against e.g. Linux, or in this case the distribution of software.
Reddit does not control your life. What you're saying is 100% counterfactual and downright hysterical.
Nevermind, I figured it out. You have zero reading comprehension. Normally I would say try again, but given your analysis of TFS and of my post I think that would be a waste of everyone's time.
Nowhere does your link say "applies if it's a distress call".
Since when do articles explain the law to you? The link makes it clear it wasn't a distress call, you are not obligated to respond to a non-distress call. It's the reason distress calls are treated as a separate class.
You don't even need to know the law to understand this, just have two working braincells do a bit of thinking and apply some logic.
An ad hominem attack addresses the character, motive, or traits of an argumenter instead of the argument they're making.
The whole argument they made was just the insult. That is a pure attack on the character. There is literally no such thing as an ad hominem attack when the topic of the sentence is a simple insult.
they can't monitor the Coast Guard emergency channel
The call wasn't made on the emergency channel.
And even, if later, they hear the call but a rescue is underway, who needs a backup vessel in case something happens to the primary rescue boat.
Precisely no one. If they did they would announce it on the emergency channel. How many times have you driven past a broken down car with an AA car next to it and thought... maybe I'll help the helper? Yeah I figured, none. Man you're as bad as those rich lizard people.
The superyacht passed by the vessel in distress. The superyacht had no mechanical issues. Thus it could have helped.
Nope, you're making assumptions. Based on all available evidence on the topic the superyacht didn't "pass by". It was the closest ship but was also unreachable on a radio call made on a non-emergency frequency.
Yeah maybe it could have helped. Just like I could have helped my next door neighbour last week when she fell down the stairs, except I didn't know it happened so I didn't help there either. Note: I was the closest person and the first I heard of the incident was when I saw the ambulance.
I never said one thing about Zuckerbug.
To quote the aptly named Unknowing Fool: "He finds the excuses made by Zuckerburg flimsy." Sorry buddy you're not Donald Trump, you don't benefit from the ability to unsay things.
You on the other hand seem ready to defend him at all costs.
Pointing out Zuckerberg was literally not involved is worth defending. The man is a piece of shit for so many reasons, helping unrelated incidents on him massively devalues any criticism.
Zuckerburg owned two vessels in the area. Neither of them assisted. These are facts.
Again Zuckerburg whose name you can't even spell wasn't involved, so why do you feel the need to point out the ownership? And it's not Captains. It's Captain. One vessel was a support vessel for the other. The superyacht makes the calls.
I agree with you on one thing: Neither assisted, but that's the only fact you have. You are passing judgement based on complete ignorance of everything that has happened at the time.
You really are
An UnknowingFool.
Virtually all reporting on this showed they were unreachable. Maybe they actively ignored the radio, but at no point did anyone actively "decline".
Worth it in what way? How are you judging the worth of a person? Also the GP wasn't talking about a couple of weeks, they aren't the problem. There's a massive array of diseases that require ongoing regular treatment or a person will die, but with treatment could live for decades more.
I'm curious where you specifically draw the line. What is the dollar value you think we should just let people die for? Also do you apply that only for terminal illnesses or should the dollar value also apply to diagnosis? Maybe CT scans are too expensive and anyone who can't be fixed via a cheap xray should go untreated? What about society at large. A person in a wheelchair has an INSANE amount of socialised money spent on their mobility from parking spaces, ramps, elevators. Should we just let them waste away at the bottom of the stairs?
Or maybe you care about perceived value. Do you give people an IQ test and just let the ones who fail die? Or maybe you judge people's worth on their societal value, like the nun who helped children gets to live, but the guy who beat his wife doesn't?
Please provide us an itemised list. You want lines? Draw them, let's see what kind of a person you really are.
If thatâ(TM)s what it takes to get skeptical parents to vaccinate their children In okay with that. But letâ(TM)s get those kids vaccinated ASAP.
The reason the MMR vaccine was combined is to reduce the amount of missed vaccine appointments. Splitting MMR is going to cause more kids from responsible parents to become unintentionally unvaccinated than it is going to save the offspring of a couple of fucking morons.
Considering that most unsolicited spam calls are spoofed numbers and come from overseas and not originating in France, this is going to be near impossible to enforce. It's really a superficial law that will have little to no effect.
False. Most unsolicited spam calls are from local companies selling you a local product, even if the number originates from overseas. Hell most are VERY local, usually a utility trying to get you to change you electricity or gas contract.
How does France plan on enforcing those laws against bots calling from another country over the internet?
This doesn't seem to be much of a problem in Europe. Virtually every single telemarketing call I've received has been local for a local business. But frankly any company that has a footprint within the EU can be fined regardless of where their call centre is.
FORTRAN is not a flower but a weed -- it is hardy, occasionally blooms, and grows in every computer. -- A.J. Perlis
