> Democrats can't fix shit! They are just as bad as Republicans

Translation: I notice the same problems regardless of who is in charge of what, so they are both the same to me.

SMH

> What side do you think?

I didn't ask "what side", nor was I responding to the TFS.

> Yes China lies. Tell us how that is different from your side, and what this actually means for AI negotiations.

I don't understand what quenda meant by "sides", so I asked about it. This is how conversation works. Thinking about each nation as a side makes no sense in context.

> Tell us how that is different from your side,

What sides are you referring to?

I'm not convinced the agents were trying to hide their activities or install software (while understanding the implications), but the point is made.

>> for better worse, the voters of California approved CAHSR only on the condition that it connect the inland cities. There's a legitimate logic to it. It's just American logic and not French logic.

> Ah, yes. France is pretty special in that everything has to connect to Paris. That is not the general situation.

That wasn't the point being made and makes no sense in context.

> Gates is just too smart for that.

Dont turn your brain off because you reached your moral threshold. Maybe he was involved because it wasnt about just sex. Gates and the Clintons have alwas been an immoral bunch. With enough wealth, it festered.

> when you repeat a provenly false story about Trump that anything else you say is discounted as nonsense.

Unsurprising that you don't understand why Godwin's is a useful meme and your partisan "corollary" never will be.

> That would be an immediate drastic reduction in demand, which would crush small businesses and large alike.

You havent sold that counterpoint. Crushing existing exploitative businesses and optional purchases is the point, but it cettainly wouldnt be immediate.

> Who decides it's misinformation?

Who decides what words mean?

> If there were advances in the state of the art of sky color,

My analogy is sensible and your attempt to extend it, is nonsensical. I don't think you're interested in good faith discussion, but I'll try to make the world a slightly better place with some facts.

There are multiple classes of Antiarrhythmic agents that address different chemical channels, to the same effect. Heart trauma, from surgery scarring to infarctions, and variable base chemistry, requires an array of different channels to reduce heart rate consistently. Multiple channel treatments are often used in tandem or rotated. These are called beta blockers for simplicity. ie These drugs stop the signals from the spine from getting to the heart the same way they normally would.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Beta blockers are not magic, nor were they invented in the 50s or the 90s. The invention of a treatment does not correlate with the performance of a formal study accepted by modern medicine in some locale. Studies are necessarily narrow and it can take decades for a particular treatment vector to be confirmed or decried, despite the treatment being widely used prior in a more general application. Heart arrhythmias, have a very similar treatment across the world, across time.

> I've lived long enough to watch drugs be introduced, grow popular, and then be declared ineffective and even harmful.

As a heart patient of 50 years (first surgery at age 2), having spent a non-trivial amount of my life in hospital and bedridden at times, I am painfully aware that beta blockers are not one of them. Going from 200 bpm to 80 with an IV/pill is demonstrable and prevents the heart from tearing itself apart. Beta blockers save lives, period. Statistically, you will be treated with beta blockers as well, regardless of your feelings.

If you want to argue about blood thinners, the advances in that chemical realm are varied and a mixed bag. If you want to argue about valve technology, the blood flow dynamics and testing is generations beyond even my second valve replacement over 20 years ago due to automation, material technology, sample data, and evolved standards.

I hope this helps you in your next discussion about the topic.

From the Ancient Greeks. That's how old. Arguing there is no citation when someone says the sky is blue, is not compelling.

Brave killed FF for me and everyone I know. I suspect it's because of the scammy-crypto elements. I was nervous that it was a "cheap" Chrome clone...since the seamless Chrome looks is it's supposed to look like. I tried FF again last year and uninstalled again. I have to use Chrome for testing and specific sites that are too bound up in elements detected to be adtech. It's too much trouble to maintain disparate browser envs. - posted from Brave

> You got anything besides mindless propaganda?

I don't believe it's propaganda, but it's not surprising that you leap to the least gracious interpretation.

> Biden had no policies. Biden was a zombie. His handlers and the autopen ran the Whitehouse.

A worldview that I can understand. Biden was barely functioning, which is a form of being compromised since he lost large amounts of time. Trump is eerily similar, where I am sure he is running things under various blackmailed conditions *at best* paired with a lesser mental dysfunction. This is a different type of kompromat, but his policies are not fully his, all the same. One deception does not excuse another and focusing on this nonsense is a distraction born of tribalism.

Biden's policies (regardless of origin) were certainly better formulated than anything TACO has come up with or the absence of them. THAT is what's important. It's a net loss.