83·
9 months agoFuturists look to reach the singularity and Evangelists look to invoke the rapture. Not everything any group looks to do is actually practical.
- 0 Posts
- 45 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
Cake day: July 10th, 2023
You are not logged in. If you use a Fediverse account that is able to follow users, you can follow this user.
Let’s say Don is now supportive of medical assistance (MAID) in dying. That’d be a better way to look at it. I wonder if that became a point of discussion whether he could actually be persuaded to support it. Although, there is an issue with some medical assistance in dying policy being too lenient, so not sure how to thread that needle.
First gender affirming surgery was 1930 https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-forgotten-history-of-the-worlds-first-trans-clinic/ A little more than a few years ago…
It’s about Swift and not one of the richest people in the world who lives in the kleptocracy that passed this legislation and historically has made a big fuss over this issue?
Now I’m even less likely to watch the video. Panned over to 12:38. That is a pretty egregious error. Either they are incompetent and their opinions aren’t too valuable, or intentionally trying to mislead the now over 1.4million people who have watched that video. This seems like they tried to cherry pick a stat that bodes in favour of their argument and biffed it. Lots of people are still immigrating to Canada, so definitely far more than “no one” wants to live in Canada. https://www.statista.com/topics/2917/immigration-in-canada/
I see no citations in the video description and I’m not too interested in listening to their argument if they can’t provide those citations up front. The only measure they seem to be appealing to in order to support their claim that “no one wants to live in Canada” is that Canada has lowered in happiness index. But, by that measure Canada is 15th in the world and USA is 23rd. So, if that’s the main reason to think people don’t want to live in Canada, then people really don’t want to live in the USA. On its face, that strikes me as exceptionally untrue.
There are other ways to wildly speculate as well if we are doing so evidence-free.
Maybe Ben was being pressured by someone to submit false information and he wanted to ensure his work was scrutinized more and falsehoods uncovered without explicitly bringing attention to the fact that this was his intention.
How’s this for a plan:
- build high speed rail
- build more housing (especially single dwelling) that is not corporate owned
- tax more heavily income from real estate conglomerates to fund 1 and 2
15·1 year agoI think The Lancet is a reputable journal. They seem to have conveyed the findings of this article well. With quotes from the authors as well. Seems like an adequately scientific article with very little exaggeration. So, by my standards I wouldn’t consider it click bait.
Good idea in principle. Do peer-reviewed journals only count as credible? If not, what is your proposed criteria?
30·1 year agoHere’s a transcript to peruse if anyone is interested. Then you can search for keywords to see if they were mentioned, quickly flick through Putin’s rambling and you avoid providing Tucker with a click. Here’s also an archive link if anyone prefers that.
Too bad they failed to include a double/triple negative to really hammer down the confusion.
It’s my understanding that the individual mandate requires people to buy health insurance from private companies, this means those companies can thrive while offering terrible coverage for high costs without any chance of losing business because of their shady practices. This sounds to me like a plan that a conservative would concoct if they really wanted Laissez-faire / croney capitalism but wanted to placate the left by making it sound like this was entirely government funded.
If this is true, it’s a win-win for the right. Keep it in place and the private medical companies are secure to maintain high profit margins surreptitiously. If it fails, blame the left and you get an easy justification for going back to having no government involvement at all whereby less people pay monthly because there is no individual mandate but the private medical companies are free to charge even more to the people who do pay and when those that don’t pay need medical treatment (everyone eventually in their lifetime) they can charge an arm and a leg and laugh all the way to the bank while medical debt for citizens skyrockets. The best part? If this plan is put in place carefully enough and messaging is carefully crafted, you’ll get nominally left people advocating for it!
Am I wrong?
Pelosicare? More like Romneycare?
(Centre for American Progress)
This article is from January. It has since been peer reviewed and published in Cell. But, having been peer reviewed has no bearing on reproducibility unless within this study they were to have multiple independent groups repeat their experiments. Which I don’t think they did. Still, good study I think.