> Your own linkn shows

I used the same link as Archtech and I posted the conclusion of that report in response to Archtech, because after reading just his comment one could think the GBR was doing just fine. But as the report's conclusion states that's not justified, at least partly because health indicators other than 'hard coral cover, like frequency and severity of bleaching events and of crown-of-thorn outbreaks, need to also be considered.

> shows 2024 as peak for Central and Northen reefs since 1986...

Yes, on the measure of 'hard coral cover' for the north and central parts, while the south section has done worse for the same period (in the south I suppose it's at least partly because of the high water temperatures, but I'm just guessing).

https://www.aims.gov.au/sites/...

"The prognosis for the future disturbance regime under climate change is one of increasingly frequent and longer lasting marine heatwaves. The consequences of climate change are evidenced by multiple mass coral bleaching events since 2016 in the three GBR regions. Such bleaching events were rare prior to the late 1990s but have become a biennial occurrence in the last decade. Simultaneously, the continuing risk of tropical cyclones and crown-of-thorns starfish outbreaks, and chronic stressors such as high turbidity, increasing ocean temperatures and changing ocean chemistry, can all negatively affect recovery rates. Additionally, more frequent acute disturbances mean that the intervals for recovery are becoming shorter. Enabling coral reefs to survive these stressful conditions requires a combination of a reduction in global greenhouse emissions to stabilise temperatures, best practice management of local pressures, and the development of interventions to help reefs adapt to and recover from the effects of climate change."

I pointed out that in your original comment that you made two specific claims that as stated seem to be clearly false:

1) "The EU banned GMO"

2) "proteomics is just yet another field that they're well behind the rest of the world"

The first, is partly true, though as stated false.

The second, you've made that claim before, and all I can find on that specific topic shows it to be false.

> What market means to me specifically isn't relevant and that map isn't really saying much about whats going on on a global scale.
> >Well, you might want to read your sources more before linking them.

I did read them. I was speaking specifically about the specific map you told me to look at when you wrote "Do a ctrl-f on your link for "Global Proteomics Market By Geography"

In short, I think my links support the idea that proteomics isn't "yet another field that they're well behind the rest of the world", but if you can explain why you think that's wrong or if you can provide support that as far as proteomics is concerned the EU is well behind the rest of the world, I'm curious.

> This is why we use median rather than average. Median measurements can still hide a little, but a lot less than averages (means).

Yes, but that can still hide a lot.

> But if you look at the population by deciles what you see is the same thing;

I usually want to see finer grained numbers because deciles can also hide a lot.

> even the poorest 10% of Americans have gotten ~50% richer in the last 50 years ...

50 %, any references ?

What of numbers like these: The 10th percentile saw a 5% drop in wages (see figure 4) ?

"Wage Stagnation in Nine Charts" - https://www.epi.org/publicatio...

> That implies that there's some social benefit to redistributive policies... and IMO the US needs to do more of that

Agree, it would be even nicer if the level of unequal distribution of wealth, and gains in productivity, weren't so marked in the first place.

"The Productivity–Pay Gap" - https://www.epi.org/productivi...

> But we want to be careful not to go so far that we reduce the incentive for innovation and entrepreneurialism that make everyone richer

Yes, but I think it's clear that for a while now the US has tipped much too far towards unequal distribution, even Canada is into unhealthy territory.

"Income inequality hit record high at start of 2025, Statistics Canada says" - https://www.cbc.ca/news/politi...

> or good because Americans as a whole got a lot better off is a matter of perspective I suppose.

I wonder what has happened to smaller slices of the population, because averages can hide a lot. In a lot of situations the average can go up quite a lot while for some lower groups it's stagnant or goes down.

It also looks like wealth going up for some when it's going up much faster for others can be worse on overall social and physical health than if wealth had stayed the same for everyone. I don't have any specific links for that, just a general impression.

In other words, I'm not sure the average going up is a good in itself.

> Sort of. The EU made it hard to allow them at all due to overregulation, and most EU member states have de-facto banned them anyway

Yeah, sort of sort of. 19 countries out of 27 have a ban on growing at least one GMO product and few to none ban GMO imports.

> As an example of what I mean by this ...

I'm usually unimpressed by analogies and emotional pleas but I'm open to better numbers on GMOs in the EU.

> Market doesn't mean what you think it means. Regardless, that actually supports what I said anyway. Do a ctrl-f on your link for "Global Proteomics Market By Geography", let me know what you find, namely that two-color map.

What market means to me specifically isn't relevant and that map isn't really saying much about whats going on on a global scale.

> proteomics is just yet another field that they're [EU] well behind the rest of the world on

My links weren't meant as some definitive authority on all aspects of proteomics, it was only to show your comment was far from true. Can you support your stated opinion?

> I agree that Hamas is a genocidal organization that is built on Islamofacism and wants to kill me.

I don't know if they want to kill you but I agree with the rest of that sentence. Sadly some Israeli soldiers and politicians are also promoting crimes against humanity and atrocities against civilians in Gaza.

> You can believe whatever Nazi Islamofascist fantasy that you want to.

What fantasy is that?

> The EU banned GMO ...

The EU has not banned GMOs according to a google search. Do you have anything to support your claim?

> Which is fine to me because proteomics is just yet another field that they're well behind the rest of the world on

Any support for that ? This shows it's far from true:

"Proteomics Market Size, Share, and Growth Analysis" - https://www.skyquestt.com/repo...

"European Proteomics Association (EuPA)" - https://eupa.org/

I'm not the parent you first responded to.

Do you agree with the International Association of Genocide Scholars (and many Jewish historians and also Lemkin, the guy who in 1948 first legally defined and coined the term genocide) that there is genocide going on in Gaza?

If not, I'm curious why you think their conclusions on the legal criteria are wrong?

Israel committing genocide in Gaza, world's leading experts say - https://www.bbc.com/news/artic...

5 Reasons Why the Events in Gaza Are Not “Genocide” - https://www.ajc.org/news/5-rea...

I've seen a lot of documented arrests made by ICE agents that were not undercover and were hiding their identity.

Here's just one - https://www.fox5dc.com/news/vi...

There's no reason for those guy's to not have some ICE logo in view, other special forces do it and they should too especially when they are obviously not dressed in undercover clothes.

> ICE is a federal organization which impacts billions of dollars of not street gang but paramilitary cartel money.

If the people are on American soil then the police have to deal with their criminal activity too, and that includes arresting and taking them into custody.

> Is this even discussion. In the very first paragraph of the summary.

"The company states its vehicles choose parking based on local regulations, existing vehicle distribution, and proximity to high-demand areas but cannot explain the algorithmic specificity"

But there's more:

"Morgan, for her part [10 year old], is delighted by the Waymo’s return visits, since she sees it as approval of their family by the robot cars. Her parents have been more curious, so they’ve run some informal experiments.They’ve learned that it’s not just one Waymo taking the spot, since Tucker has documented the license plates of multiple different vehicles. A Waymo will also only select one of two specific parking spots: directly in front of their home or straddling the property line with their neighbors to the south. Delgin has noticed that if both of those two spots are taken, a Waymo coming through will slow down, but not stop or try to park elsewhere on the street, even for open spots directly in front of, behind, or across the street from their home."

?

So on one side we have super cheap and generic beta blockers that at best have very minimal net profit margins which is supported by all the numbers presented in the comments including yours, and on the other we have drug manufacturers and/or others in the supply chain incentives who keep quiet about problems with the drugs they manufacture & distribute, along with people who act in bad faith and giant corporate profits being collected.

All the above can exist at the same time.

And I agree there's a lot of abuse in pharmaceuticals, but the article's reference to recent studies on beta blockers and your reference to their costs doesn't support that.

> If it was $9.7 billion, that would still be $300 million in profits--but more importantly to the thousands of people involved, it would have provided them with employment for the year. This is something people will fiercely protect.

I'm not following you. Are you saying retail prices for generic beta blockers are abusive ?

> I have shown the beta blockers category racks up $10 billion a year in sales.

Yes, so then what are the yearly costs needed to rack up those yearly sales ?

> I didn't say they did.

That was clear. I was annoyed that you side-skirted half the differences Local ID10T brought up.

> Local police certainly don't do these things when undercover.

I've seen lots of ICE agents and clearly not undercover with no identification, including no ICE acronym. Some ICE agents may be undercover sometimes may be undercover but it's far from the main kind of operations that have been going on these past months, so much so that bringing undercovers up feels like a diversion.

> They go without uniforms and identifying vehicles whenever they think it will help them get bad guys.

That sounds a bit like your not very serious with "the bad guys". If you are, it's not a valid justification, police used to act that way too and it was stopped because it lead to abuse too often.

> The point here is that there is reason when making an arrest that they identify as law enforcement so people know not to resist them. The agency and internal staff can identify the officer involved in any incident in the event of a complaint and in relation to any arrest.

Valid points.

> But there is no reason that an ICE raid should have to broadcast itself and let the bad guys get away or the agents and their families should be doxed to cartels and gangs that use threats against family as a primary intimidation tactic. Sorry bad guys, you don't get to fight back, avoid, or to impede the federal agents.

You start with a few straw men, then you're back with "the bad guys" and a clear soap box tone. So in effect no argument and I don't see the point of trying a more direct reply.

And what's up with all the face masks ? And don't bring up gangs and cartels, police officers have to deal with that too, and a lot more and a lot worse than that every day.