TCDR

Too crazy; didn't read

And by the way, Einstein, Water has two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen. Hence H2O, not HO2.

Wow. You doubled down without doing even a modicum of research. Even Google's AI could have saved you some embarrassment. Keep spitting those facts, genius. I'll stick with those "alternative facts" that actual chemists use.

Waitaminit. For decades, liberals have been saying that voting was the mostest importantest right evuh. It's far too important to even ask racist questions, like "Are you a US citizen?" before voting. Now you're telling me that it's not important enough to to validate your identity when your signature doesn't match? Maybe we could do, like, in person voting all on the same day and show an ID at the same time so these kinds of problems wouldn't crop up. Naaaah. it'd never work. Otherwise, other countries would have done it.

Thank you for the clearing that up. I see your chemistry knowledge is as comprehensive as your political education. I was totally unaware that H2O2 is water. I always thought that was H2O. All you knowledgeable liberals should make sure to keep pointing out those facts to us uneducated heathens.

No he's not. I've worked in higher education for several decades. When I first came here, the administrative wing was one side of one floor of one building. Now they have an entire building, filling three floors and are discussing taking over the basement and kicking out the department there. That doesn't even count the administrative departments for marketing, enrollment management, retention, advising and campus life that fills half the student union. Most of that didn't exist back then. Our enrollment is about 20% higher, at around 12,000, than it was when I first started.

> Who decides it's misinformation?

Who decides what words mean?

This is a WSJ article about "success stories" for an unsuccessful Apple product. There's little more to be said, aside for pointing out that this is how marketing desperation looks like. Somebody needs some "independent" good news to show when asked uncomfortable questions at investor meetings.

> 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.

Let's skip over the fact that your original post referred to TFS, not TFA. There's also no reference to 0.6g/kg in TFA. There's the explicit reference to 0.8:

and your quote, where the relevant part is

Last time I checked, 0.6 is half of 1.2, not of 1.6, that would be ... 0.8, surprise! - so I'm not even certain what you were trying to prove with that quote?

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

Maybe take your own advice? from TFS

In fact, 0.6g/kg is nowhere in the summary, the recommended amount is 0.8g/kg.

Especially true when merely reading TFS is hard.

They also poured money into Lennart Poettering which cancels out Linus on the scoreboard.