Genocidal much? Your total disdain for the value of human life, defended by your claimed interest in the value of human life is anti-vax-level self deception. We've got enough nutters to deal with pushing Ivermectin, we don't need the likes of you giving the anti-vax folks this sort of fodder. Please adopt some sanity, or, if you really do care, be quiet.

Any study with only 54 participants is not a "high-quality" trial. I suspect that, given the public furor over Ivermectin, and the relative ease of performing a trial on 50 participants (vs 1500, in some of the recent high-quality trials), there have probably been at least 1500/50 ~ 30 such trials performed. At 95% confidence, we would therefore expect a few positive results. The negative results on 50 participants are so low in statistical power that they are probably unpublishable in most venues, which is unfortunate because they would make for a good meta-analysis.

I hypothesize that there is some psychology at work here and in many other similar cases between affirmative science language:

"We have shown with 95% confidence that X"

And negative science language:

"Our data do not provide evidence that X."

This is exacerbated when translated into science-journalism-speak "scientists prove that X" vs "scientists find no evidence that X". The latter almost seems to imply that said scientists just aren't looking hard enough. I mean, there is some deep statistical magic underpinning these phrasings, but a 1,500 strong study that finds no evidence is, IMHO, as strong (or moreso) a finding as a 400-strong study that finds an effect (even if that study hadn't been retracted).

You're thinking of cryptographic hash functions which produce very different output for slightly different input by design. This is not a property of all hash functions, but only of the ones you're probably used to using.

How can you point your finger while still driving that car 10k miles a year, living in a home 5x bigger than you *really* need with the associated energy footprint, and buying ALL THAT crap (you know what crap!) that was made on the backs of dinos? No.... we're all to blame here.

Such is America. We live and die by the dollar. If it ain't worth a dollar then it ain't worth a thing.

The problem isn't generating the high energy photons, it's concentrating them. You really have to duel a lot of cowboys before two bullets will collide midair.

You just need a bigger (higher energy) photon. Hitting something with a sledgehammer does a lot more damage than your fist, even at the same speed.

Because if the measure of the Amazon Warehouse Worker's life is stocking shelves at an Amazon Warehouse, then gods help us all. There is more to life than work, you know.

Everyone's comments indicate that the takeaway here is that "Oregon will no longer teach students to write or do math." This is not stated in the article at all. I'm not sure if any of you have high school diplomas, but if so, that is proof that they were less than meaningless long before this.

Condensation traps are simple and ancient survival tools...

That's what states have *been* doing, and it doesn't help at all. Worse, drunks can't pay the fine, and the taxpayer gets saddled with paying for that prison stay that accomplished nothing whatsoever. Not that fitting cars with breathalyzers in the ignition IS the solution. Maybe there just isn't a perfect solution to each and every single problem.

But this is 95% of endeavors. Cashiers and artists and waitstaff and rocketScientists and historians and programmers and carpenters all require precision and attention to detail. Maybe we can just teach people to be precise and to attend to details....

From a certain angle, one might argue that someone isn't quite right in their headbrain for any major crime. I mean, the average J[oe][ane][hey] isn't going around murdering/raping/carjacking/etc people. IANAL, but I think the standard for courts is not just run-of-the-mill crazy, but a literal inability to tell "right" from "wrong". E.g. If this Shane fellow literally did not know and was incapable of comprehending that swatting was less okay/legal than, say, playing a game of checkers.

Perhaps you missed my "mostly" qualifier? Also, this goes back long before the 90s, into the cold war. But back then, the term was "communist", not "terrorist".