Maybe you should read the actual scientific paper instead of ranting. It will give you knowledge and improve your blood pressure. (In case you missed that last reference: ranting raises your blood pressure. There you go).

Man, if you're getting your science information from news stories, the problem is you.

We live in a world where the actual study is a click away. At least read the abstract.

Entangling multiple qbits is still tough

To be fair, back then, 40 was old. But yes, you get my point.

Well, yeah, but those are still cities. Almost twice as many people live in parts of cities that are not "dense urban cores".

And the dense areas involve apartment complexes with hundreds or thousands of units and interior halls, so they're not delivering one package to the building; they're delivering a hundred. It wouldn't make sense to send drones for that.

But if you can handle the suburban sprawl with drones, that's a huge logistics win, because that's where all the time is spent — not by somebody going to an urban-core building and dropping a hundred packages in the mail room, but by somebody going to a hundred individual houses and dropping off a hundred packages one at a time.

You're not misreading it. It is individualized. Different cancers express different antigens, and the mRNA vaccine needs to construct something that expresses those same antigens to train the immune system to attack them.

The nice thing about mRNA, is that it is potentially relatively cheap to synthesize mRNA strands and replicate them. It won't be hundreds of dollars, but it won't be millions, either. Right now, I think it's hundreds of thousands per patient, but that will go down over time as they streamline the process of taking a sample of the tumor and determining an mRNA gene sequence that matches said cancer. And economies of scale on the equipment will also probably help.

It may also be the case that it becomes less individualized over time. At some point, we might reach the point where they have a bunch of pre-sequenced antigens that are all ready to go, and someone just keys in a list of antigens, and a piece of software spits out the mRNA sequence. At that point, it is still individualized, but with a much, much more streamlined process for generating it.

Note that I don't work in this field, so take all of this as the opinion of an educated layperson observer. :-)

And by that, you mean X is bad for our democracy because it is a for-profit corporation. Free speech and corporate fiscal sponsorship of that speech have been at odds since time immemorial. The problem is that the corporate sponsorship seems to be winning and the free speech seems to be losing, drowned out by the voices of those who have more money, more bots, etc.

About 20% of Democrats own firearms. So no, they won't. But implying that Democrats are going to be up in arms because they're somehow so fragile that the idea of people using firearms would cause them crippling pain is rage baiting. Please stop.

They are going to hear people who have not actually read any of the scientific papers tell what a bunch of people pushing an agenda on YouTube claim is the truth about COVID. FTFY.

Does anyone actually disagree with that?

What migrant crisis? You mean that immigrants initially may cost more than they contribute, but in the long term, contribute more than they cost? This is just an economics lesson and has zero to do with ICE rounding people up who are legally allowed to be here and who have harmed no one, terminating their right to be here, and deporting them, often to countries where they are then immediately imprisoned or killed, or to countries where they don't speak the language, or other fundamental human rights abuses. This has zero to do with the upsurge in underage pregnancies occurring in ICE detention because of illegally unsafe conditions. This has zero to do with deaths occurring in ICE detention because of illegally denying prisoners access to adequate medical care. And so on.

What you're missing is that the left doesn't object to deporting dangerous people. The left doesn't even object to deporting people en masse so long as they are granted their constitutional right to a fair hearing and due process. What the left objects to are gestapo tactics, illegally rounding college students on valid student visas in the middle of the night and deporting them on a bench warrant obtained under false pretense, locking people in cages at density that exceeds what any sane person would consider humane treatment, illegal discharge of firearms resulting in death of unarmed civilians, and any number of other criminal acts committed by ICE in their war on non-white people.

If you want to change policy, change policy. But change it above the board, through actions by Congress, and make those changes explicitly non-retroactive. Don't treat people like garbage. If you do that, the left won't have a problem with you. They might disagree with you, but they will not be offended by you. What offends the left is when the right shows disrespect and contempt for them. And they should be offended by that, because not respecting others is per se offensive.

They're going to dislike it because disrespecting people is a sin. They might not use the word "sin", but the moral argument is the same.

Do you think H1-B reduction is a left-right thing? It isn't. It's a corporate-sponsored-politicians versus everyone else thing. The voters on the left don't like H1-Bs, either. They just dislike them for different reasons than the right does. The right dislikes H1-Bs because they bring in more immigrants. The left dislikes H1-Bs because they trap immigrants in jobs and make transferring hard, which makes it possible for companies to mistreat them, not pay them a fair wage, etc. The only people who like them are the ones who are in the pockets of the companies that take advantage of them as a cost-reduction tool.

Not many people in the U.S. like communism. The problem comes from folks on the right painting everything they don't like as communist, and from painting socialism with the same brush. They are not the same. Socialism is a spectrum, with the moderate end wanting things like guaranteed medical care, K-12 schooling, TVA, police and fire protection, etc. and the extreme end wanting governments to buy all the big companies and give the money back to the people.

A lot of folks on the right paint even the moderate end as communism, which is an attitude that's far-removed from any reasoned analysis of objective reality. And they do this because blowhard politicians use the word "communism" as a shibboleth/dog whistle, along with words like "woke", "DEI", etc., deliberately distorting the meaning of words to score cheap political points. It's not the positions the right takes that offend the left. It is the massively distorted caricatures of the left's positions that the right has to use to scare people into voting for them.

I haven't seen a whole lot of truth coming out of X. I've mostly seen a lot of people who think they're speaking the truth, whose entire premise could be torn down by a mountain of studies proving conclusively that they're wrong, were it not for the fact that the people arguing the other side are also arguing from ignorance. To be fair, this pretty much describes political discussions on the Internet in general, not just X.

This is kind of the nature of things. The older people get, the more set in their ways they become, and the less they like change. So basically, people become more conservative as they age, and less tolerant of things they don't understand. They also accumulate more wealth and favor keeping more of it (fiscal conservatism). And so on. This is generally a well-understood phenomenon.

If you mean that ragebait baits younger people more, you're probably correct. Older people at some point realize that they're not going to change anyone's opinion when it is so thoroughly unhinged in its presentation, because that means they aren't presenting an opinion because of careful thought, but rather because of conditioning. So it's usually a waste of time to reply at all.

IMO, rage baiting and echo chambers are basically two sides of the same coin. It's either deliberately provoking them to condition them to attack anything that disagrees with their opinions or it is regurgitating opinions. If anything, rage baiting is the fire that tests the echo chamber. It fuels it. It creates it.

I'm okay with engaging with challenging opinions. This is not the same thing as rage baiting. A challenging opinion requires actually giving reasons for that opinion, supporting evidence, etc. Rage baiting is assuming the contrary without supporting evidence, acting as though everyone knows that it is true, and accusing people of being stupid if they disagree. The two have very little in common. It's the difference between arguing with an intellectual and arguing with a deliberate troll. One can change opinions, or at least refine them. The other is just a bunch of talking heads shouting at each other.

What if there are no politicians that we don't hate infinitely?

It's a statistically correct statement, at least post-1973. When asked what the main consideration for joining was, money was the top answer, and IIRC more than half gave that answer. The military is a steady job and provides other financial-adjacent benefits, such as the G.I. Bill paying for higher education. And when there aren't so many steady jobs out there, that makes it more compelling.

Not saying it's the only reason, just that it is one of the larger influencing factors in how well the military is able to recruit.

This is a study of people born in a set time period at a set location.

There were LOTS of things happening at that time. Yes sugar was rationed, but there were also a lot less chemicals being made, some new chemicals started up, jet travel became common, the men had come home, but some did not. New medicines appeared. New foods became common besides sugar.

The writers of this study picked one of thousands of potential explanations and ascribed it as the cure. They have NO EVIDENCE at all that reduced sugar was the cause.

This is the WORST possible example bad studies. It's like I looked at one of the cancer maps people make, pick a school in the center and blamed the Principal of the school for intentionally giving cancer to his students.

This study indicates Britain's of a certain age have health benefits. It does NOT indicate sugar had anything to do with it.

I mean sure, I might die in a pointless war in Iran that wouldn't have been necessary if the same guy who started this war hadn't ripped up the nuclear agreements we had previously with Iran the last time he was in charge, but think about getting to play a video game for FOUR WHOLE DAYS!

But in all seriousness, the main motivation for joining the military continues to be money. So I guess if they were planning to play GTA anyway, that's like extra free money, so maybe it might tip the balance for a few people... but I doubt it will rise above the noise floor. Politics, active wars, etc. also don't usually rise above the noise floor, surprisingly.

The only big factor in recruiting is the economy. When the job market is good, recruiting drops. When the job market stinks, recruiting increases. So if they really want to increase military recruiting, all they have to do is tank the job market further, and it will happen naturally.

Trouble with trying to run a study on the Amish is that their lifestyles are pretty significantly different all around. Comparing groups on either side of a hard dividing line (there was a study in the UK of shingles vaccines where over/under a certain age was a hard line in the sand) works well because the lifestyles of the population groups are basically the same.