Once scientists came up with the germ theory of disease, you'd think we would have entered a new golden age of healthcare. But instead we are subjected to bad tasting antibiotics whenever we get a cholera infection, and almost everyone is still washing their hands after they defecate.

If the cholera epidemic was really over, you'd see almost no one washing their hands after taking a shit, but hand washing culture has become so ingrained, I fear it will be permanent. Cholera will never be over because it will live on in some minds forever.

Even a bachelors in CS is worth a lot. Average starting salary is $70k. I am currently making $190k a year, and people with CS PhDs at my company make more than I do.

Ok well then I put criticism of Biden's handling of the Afghanistan withdrawal in the same category with the steak catsup and tan suit also.

We used to have a law called the fairness doctrine that required media companies to provide both sides of an issue. We don't have that law anymore, and to be honest it was kind of a dumb law, because it required that contrasting views be presented. That sounds good, but do we really need to present contrasting views on the holocaust? Who decides when an issue should have both sides presented and when it shouldn't? There is no way to objectively determine these things.

I'm not sure what your point about science journals rejecting landmark papers is. Are you saying they should not reject any papers in case they might be landmark papers?

So being a major media organization means you are obligated to publish everyone's speech, even speech you disagree with? Fox News is a major media organization. Should they be forced to publish my content?

Science journals control what they publish. So if science journals don't publish flat earth conspiracy theories does that make them useless because their globe earth narratives "are not allowed to be questioned"?

What are some things Trump did that Putin didn't want? I can think of like 1 or 2, but not quite a lot. And it IS obviously true that Trump sought and welcomed Russia's help. The evidence that Trump was sucking up to Putin is not contradicted by the fact that he also did some things that Putin maybe didn't like. Trump does lots of things that lots of people don't like because he's a buffoon.

Being for or against a gas pipeline isn't sucking up to anyone. What I am referring to is constantly talking about how powerful Putin is. And when asked if Putin is a killer, he trashes America to defend Putin. He sides with Putin over our own intelligence services publicly.

Getting away with something usually just means avoiding punishment, which is how I meant it. I don't consider not winning an election to be a punishment. It's just something that happens when someone is very unpopular. He is getting away with crimes.

How are you this dumb? Also Turmp wouldn't even publicly take the vaccine he claims to have created because he is scared of his own dumb as shit supporters

A conspiracy implies secrecy. Trump spread the big lie and incited his dumb supporters publicly. He thinks he can do anything and get away with it as long as it is public. And honestly, it seems like he is right.

It depends on what you think "Russiagate" actually is. I don't think Trump is a KGB asset. Honestly he's too fucking stupid and can't keep his mouth shut. Is he being deferential to Putin because he wants Putin's help in the form of disinformation campaigns to help him win? I think that's pretty obviously true.

We already know the reasons Hillary lost to Trump. She was very unpopular. Trump is even more unpopular. IN fact Trump and Hillary were the 2 least popular presidential candidates in US history. What happens when 2 very unpopular candidates are in an election together? One of them wins. And the electoral college advantage for Trump was just enough to help him beat Hillary despite losing the popular vote.

Our dumb election system causes dogshit candidates to be nominated. It only benefits the two political parties.

Maybe the most vaccinated countries aren't seeing a slowdown because their rates are already very low. Only the countries doing really badly can see huge improvements.

What freedoms are being taken away? Do you have the freedom to force someone to publish your speech? What about the freedom to control your own platform? What about Google's freedom of speech? Freedom of speech means the government can't censor you. It doesn't mean that everyone has to be your soapbox.

I hope he fails math.

Here is another way of looking at it. Yes you need a reason, but you don't need conclusive proof to do something. You can take any law prohibiting or mandating something (e.g. drunk driving). There was a time when there were no drunk driving laws. Does it really make sense to get caught in the chicken and egg problem of never passing a drunk driving law until there is conclusive proof of it's efficacy, but never getting the conclusive proof because you never passed a law?

This is why you do the science to find out how big a problem drunk driving is. Then you pass a law against drunk driving (which has been scientifically shown to be bad), but before the law against it has been scientifically been proven to be effective. You then get data about the efficacy of the law after it's in place. Then after you collect data on the efficacy of the law you can make an informed judgement of how to improve it or even decide to get rid of it.

I did find that one study. That said, scientific data trumps educated guessing, but in the absence of scientific data, educated guessing is a good starting point.

The reason is that it will probably prevent some deaths, and not cost any deaths and not cost a lot of money (which would both be deal breakers). On the downside it is a minor short term infringement of freedom, consistent with other infringements of freedoms we take for granted everyday (like being forced to wear clothes to cover our genitals in public).