Microsoft when Bing first came out was literally like “it is highly recommended that everyone here use Bing Search”.

A lot of opioids are fairly related, Oxycodone and Oxymorphone can be used as precursors to make Nalaxone and vice versa. I recall Four Thieves Vinegar Collective doing a similar trick though I don’t remember what the actual precursor was.

EssilorLuxottica might be “unknown” but it is the eyeglass maker with a functional monopoly on the industry and parent company to the many better known ‘companies’ such as: Ray-Ban, Oakley, Persol, Oliver Peoples, Vogue Eyewear, LensCrafters, Pearle Vision, Sunglass Hut, EyeMed etc.

The implications are the variables are conflated and the conclusions are overblown.

It should come as no surprise that acute trauma and injecting a foreign substance would cause a relatively significant immunological response. The issue is that for the “chronic phase”, which is where the novelty of this research lies, the evidence shown is far from difinitive compared to the story being told and what results are shown aren’t overly significant.

Even if you 100% believe the paper the conclusion is that the effect of getting tattooed is, arguably, similar to catching the flu once. However, the paper itself tried to obfuscate that so they have a more impactful result and the marketing/outreach/media site that was linked here doubles down on it trying to sell the story of “tattoos==illness and death”!!!

Oh honey… This is barely below average.

The full paper is here and, as usual, it’s hardly anything and decontextualized in order to get a publishable result.

This one is so bad that it doesn’t use established baselines or do any form of statistical analysis on the results instead opting for their own “baseline” measurements using very small sample sizes. It also plays a smoke and mirrors game where it shows a result for short term immunological response and then uses that to insinuate the ‘slightly reduced but still likely well within the error of the poor control’ long term effects are worth noting.

Other major flaws:

• As others have mentioned, mice are a terrible model for this as their skin is very thin and proper tattooing is near impossible.
• They mention verifying with human cadavers but don’t include any data from those.
• There was no control group, the baseline was an untreated mouse, not one with an acute foot trauma.
• Mice age very quickly, best I can tell the immunological markers weren’t age controlled. 2 months out of a <2 year lifespan is a lot of aging. Again, if there was a proper control to measure against.
• The obsfucation of the raw data into cheesy and unreadable box and whisker plots is hella suspicious.

At best it’s a very poorly communicated and poorly designed experiment but I suspect that’s due to it result hunting.

Depends on when you count, but for the Iraq war specifically that’s about right for the official foreign coalition forces.

However, the Iraq war was just one front of the nearly dozen wars that were being fought as part of the “Global War on Terrorism” which NATO perpetrated, the short list of Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Pakistan, Somalia, Syria and Yemen, but arguably also including Camaroon, Philippines, Libya, Kashmir, etc.

Sure, of Europe only UK and Poland were officially deployed to Iraq, but they were actively collaborating with the rest of NATO in a much broader conflict and don’t ask about where the mercenaries and security consultants that were used heavily during those conflicts came from.

It’s not a misconception, it’s misdirection.

Also the issue of you need to be a deranged psychopath to get wealthy in the first place.

And it’s not just “overcrowded jails full of pretrial prisoners, the barefoot children carrying buckets for water in Appalachia” but the grad students in LA living out of their cars, or grandpa sleeping on a bus stop, or people in the Rockies surviving off roadkill and forage.

Seattle tent cities/tiny homes make some Favelas look real swanky.

Forgiveness can only be granted after an honest apology, acknowledgement of the harm caused, and an honest effort made to undo those harms.

Her acknowledging the harms that those surrounding her are causing is a step in the right direction, and a step towards forgiveness. But oooh boy does she still have a lot of aplogizing to do and acknowledging the harms that she herself has caused. Not to mention that her current plan isn’t to undo those harms but wipe her hands clean of it all.

Forgiveness is only on the table once she starts championing the causes of the black, hispanic and trans peoples she has victimized.

That’s because the billions spent on homelessness/poverty doesn’t go to those experiencing it but to large non-profits so they can get their reservations at 5* restaurants.

Seattle specifically is facing multiple lawsuits such as Kicheon V Seattle for violating those “checks and balances”. However those violations always seem to be in one direction.

There’s multiple ways, but as an example in a similar way as nutritional yeast is made by growing a microorganism such as Saccharomyces Cerevisiae and then extracting the products. B12 is made by growing an organism like Propionibacterium Freudenreichii and extracting and seperating those products.

You then mix the B12 from the Freudenreichii with the inactivated[dead] Cerevisiae.

Oh, they are. But you underestimate the power of opioids, police state, etc. in preventing that hunger from turning into action.

Most people here are, correctly, pointing out that going fully vegan easily gets all your required nutrients except for B12. However, this is a mostly solved problem because while “naturally” humans would get it through consumption of animal products it’s synthesized via bacteria and it’s currently produced at scale via genetically modified strains, such as Propionibacterium Freudenreichii, and used to fortify things like plant based milks and nutritional yeast.

It is something to be aware of, but it’s also not the problem many on this thread are trying to paint it as.

The story that I suspect is trying to be told is that “Republicans cause shutdowns” but that is not what this shows. Using a basic PCC¹ shows that these 2 variables aren’t particularly correlated:

With a standard error of +/- 0.302 the signal is technically outside the noise, but it’s not a strong signal and is indicative that different methodologies will give different results.

In other words the data shown does not support the hypothesis. It’s barely correlated and certainly not to enough of a degree to argue causation.

This might show the assumed premise if it included every year without a shutdown. I’m lazy, but I linked the tools so if somebody else wants to show that they can.

This does, arguably, show that shutdown length increases over time independent of controlling parties.

But, as is, it’s a chart of two uncorrelated variables where the author and audience are assuming causation despite available data.

^1. not ideal, especially with such little data, but I’m lazy.^

🤛😁

And in the US that reason often ends up being skin color and/or perceived wealth.

It’s right there in the description, it doesn’t say “fight for the issue of human rights”.

I think you’re underestimating the potential power of “vote for a woman to own the libs and show them we’re not sexist. They’re stupid!”

There’s a very particular game that’s heavily ingrained into the political establishment where they hedge claims that they have no intention of doing in order to simultaneously make “campaign promises” and still be able to say “I never said that”. There is a world of difference between:

When Congress passes a bill to restore reproductive freedom, as President of the United States, I will proudly sign it into law.

And

I will bring back the bipartisan border security bill that he killed. And I will sign it into law.

Or

I will ensure America always has the strongest, most lethal fighting force in the world.

The first one hedges it against Congress doing it and provides an effective out, it’s a weasel clause. If you would like to claim those were her platform issues then please cite the primary source because for the vast majority of those I haven’t seen any where a weasel clause wasn’t included.

Part of the appeal of Trump is that he doesn’t pay this game. People are tired of it, it’s outdated, and it feels more dishonest. Instead he just blatantly and unapologetically lies which even though it’s objectively worse gives the feeling of “telling it like it is”.

The border bill was not a slight variation from what’s currently in place unless you consider billions upon billions of dollars making ice the larger than tons of other departments, then yes those billions upon billions were a slight variation.

The proposed bill that Harris promised to implement was an annual $20.2B increase

The “One Big Beautiful Act,” allocates approximately $170 billion over four years for immigration enforcement, with about $45 billion specifically for building new detention centers

Yes, it’s worse but the original bill was still “billions upon billions of dollars making ice the larger than tons of other departments”. It’s a difference in scale, not direction.

She had a platform, it was largely positive, to say otherwise is to disregard reality.

Sure, she had one and I apologize for being a bit hyperbolic with my language. But here is what her official platform was at the time. First, compare it to the list you made above and take note of what is and isn’t listed. Then, look at the number of weasel clauses scattered throughout many of those claims.