Oh, funny how the study you cited only looked at one specific vaccine and it also says:

The study has several limitations. The vaccine was the 3-valent inactivated influenza vaccine in about 99% of our study cohort. The possibility that other influenza vaccines might have been more effective cannot be excluded.

And If we look at the average efficacy of the 2024-2025 vaccines it is >30% (see https://www.cdc.gov/flu-vaccin...).

That statement kind of ignores everything not specific to COVID-19. For example, a lot of people died because of COVID-19 but not from it because hospitals were full of COVID-19 infected who couldn't breathe on their own which made treatment of other health problems problematic. Those deaths and other deaths related to COVID-19 doesn't show up in the IFR but strangely enough the US had 1.2 million more deaths than expected during that period which is why using excess mortality is a much better indicator of how serious a virus infection spreading through the populace was.

Seems you are unaware that those who were vaccinated were less likely to have heart attacks, strokes and even dying than those who was unvaccinated and got infected. If younger people had nothing to fear from COVID-19, why wasn't the IFR 0 for them?

Have you considered to look for information outside the US binary politics and attention-whore media? There's a whole world outside the US. I also have to question your statement that people was silenced for questioning the COVID response. There was a lot of sheer stupidity and lies dressed up as debate, the assortment of celebrity grifters hocking miracle cures to the gullible and an incredible amount of mindbogglingly stupid conspiracy theories going around - none of that is questioning and AFAIK no one has ever been silenced for asking questions based on factual reality but you can prove me wrong by giving examples.

I also have to ask, who showed "almost-palpable disappointment"? You got any specifics?

But they were which should tell you something.

Sure, but a vengeful action that makes a person's situation worse is stupid regardless of what led up to it or how shitty the employer is. There's no rational reason at all for anyone to sacrifice themselves on the alter of shitty employers, especially since shitty employers tend to make sure they get their pound of flesh with some extra sprinkles on top.

People who are vengeful are often also not very rational in that emotional state, history is littered with examples of this and they seem incapable of extrapolating the consequence of their shortsighted actions. In this case, the dude's rampage came about because he was suspended from work which indicates he had already generated a fair amount of "friction" at his workplace.

And should they do this for every troll/impersonator who creates an account of a public figure? Have you any idea how often people try to create such accounts? I can guarantee it isn't as seldom as every other week or month, it's daily so it's just easier to ban such accounts that are unverified instead of wasting a lot of time and manpower.

If Vance wanted a verified account he could have used the verification process when he created the account but he didn't, with predictable results. Ie the initial ban was the result of a clueless user, the most common type there is.

Also, if you kind of missed it, BlueSky have been criticized for having an "impersonator problem" and they rolled out a new verification process to combat this in April this year, so them actually shutting down unverified accounts of public figures seems to be a result of that.

That interpretation didn't even cross my mind and I didn't see the AC post he responded to, so thanks for the clarification.

I don't know if your question is in gest or not, but the x86 refers to the CPU-architecture that was first introduced with the Intel 8086 processor that was released in 1978.

Very simplified, they are usually connected in series to get a meaningful voltage to the controller to avoid high amperage situations and it allows the inverter and the BMS to work efficiently if the nominal voltage from the panels matches those of the batteries.

There is much more to it than that, sizing a panel and battery installation is very dependent on how it's supposed to be used.

Seems you don't know how to debate your point, because just claiming you are right is lazy, stupid and a cop-out. Do you have any facts at all? Quotes taken out of context and your personal opinion doesn't count as facts - it just shows that this is more about your feelings than factual reality.

Preferable under the age of 18 apparently.

The original argument was that "being pro vaccines is not left wing" and you then provided a counter argument that conflated Biden being skeptical of what the prior Trump administration was claiming about a yet to be released vaccine with him being skeptical of vaccines. These are two vastly different things and conflating the two in an effort to make the point you just did shows that your argument is based on politics and not actual facts.

Or perhaps you are one of those who believe every claim being made, even when it comes from someone you would never trust? If you don't, why are you basing your argument on that premise, that Biden should have accepted everything Trump claimed about a vaccine?

Also, the quotes provided are taken out of context, let's add some context to the first one from Aug 5, 2020:

The other quote from July 28, 2020 which also was taken out of context, here's the context:

See how much more sense it makes when we have the contexts from which the quotes was unceremoniously yanked out of. It's almost like it was intentional to make people think Biden meant one thing when it's the opposite.

You can find the whole transcripts here: https://www.rev.com/transcript... and https://www.rev.com/transcript...

TL;DR: Being skeptical about what one man says about a topic isn't the same as being skeptical about the topic.

Had a long discussion with a communist many years ago, and his argument was that communism doesn't work at scale because you need hierarchies for it to work which leads to stratification of power, ie you still will get serfs that has no power ruled by those few holding all the power. Look at any supposedly communist state (current and historically) and you'll find that this is true.

He argued that communism only works in small groups were everyone can actually physically be present at meetings that decides what the common goal was for they group. Not everyone will agree to decisions made, but everyone will know the rationale behind them and how was delegated power to see them through. The moment your group is large enough that you need to create representatives for different internal groups it all starts to fall apart into power stratification.

There is no heat pump that produces hot water on demand, they all have an internal tank holding hot water for use when needed and are usually an 1to1 replacement for combi boilers but it is dependent on how you heat your property, ie with water radiators or ducting.

It's a good advice regardless, because the alternative is waiting for a firestorm to burn it down, or a flood inundating it, or it gets torn apart by a tornado while living with the knowledge that you could lose everything in the near future, including family members. Sometimes you just have to cut your losses to avoid getting deeper into trouble, and for some that's damn hard to accept or even manage practically and financially.

Some think what I'm saying is heartless, but I'm just pointing out the reality of the situation and reality doesn't care one bit about any arguments why it's hard for some people to move. And to those who think I'm heartless, why aren't they helping people financially that have ended up with a property that is essentially worthless due to climate changes? The answer is of course: Talk is cheap...

Pretty much this. I have raised this point on several occasions and a lot of people just scoffed at it. It's very simple, if you can't get insurance or if the premium is exorbitant in a particular area - move ASAP. The alternative, as you mentioned, is a high chance of loosing everything and going bankrupt.

It's not about the money, it's trying to get the law to stick. If NPD pays up they admit they have to follow the law, since they didn't pay up California is now suing them which makes it much harder for NPD to dodge the law since they now have to argue in court why that is. They can of course ignore the case which most likely will lead to a default-judgement against them, and that can lead to other legal problems which can be escalated until NPD has to deal with them.