BeautifulMind ♾️ @ BeautifulMind @lemmy.world

Late-diagnosed autistic, special interest-haver, dad, cyclist, software pro

---

Read more

Posts

24

Comments

449

Joined

2 yr. ago

Now to stop talking crazy: The harm caused is extremely rare, and the percentage of affected people is quite small.

True, and worth extending: for example, the cardiomyopathy (heart inflammation) known to affect some people (particularly, young men): if we're evaluating the risks of taking a vaccine vs. not taking it, we also have to consider the risks of not taking the vaccine.

It turns out that incidence of cardiomyopathy in young men that didn't receive the vaccine but were infected is higher than its incidence among young men that got the vaccine- and if anything, the immune reaction to the live virus (it causes the body to attack heart tissue) is stronger and more lethal than the reaction to the vaccine.

This means that the people arguing 'but the vaccine has risks!' as an argument against receiving it aren't considering the risks associated with rejecting it. If you think about it, your odds of being exposed to the virus are basically 100% given enough time, and basically every adverse reaction to the vaccine will be milder than the same reaction to the live virus.

One interesting corollary to the bicameral mind theory is that our brains have multiple sentient centers to them- that in turn might explain that feeling of struggling with a decision and being able to see the same thing from more than one point of view. It also explains why different parts of the brain light up in different situations

Translation: get over that we're taking away your rights. We'll give you some privilege we can take back whenever we want to in exchange for your votes for long enough for us to take away voting rights and then we won't have to offer you shit

And yet, the dominant narrative as their elders crowd them out of jobs, is that young people these days don't want to work

This sort of thing helps me understand why the first thing the house GOP majority leader demanded was defunding of the IRS. Not only is their commanding majority for the next generation on the high court vulnerable if the justices are audited, the new house majority leader has shady finances and claims not to have a bank account with any reportable amount of money in it

Yeah I hope they get audited and it's uncomfortable AF

I landed in DeWalt when their cordless devices became as good as/better than corded tools; I standardized on their battery platform only for them to abandon my battery and roll out a new (incompatible) one. Shortly thereafter my batteries bricked and it seems the business model is to force consumers to buy new tools every so often

FML I hate it that they're all proprietary and incompatible

While it's nice to hear that Biden is 'under pressure' about this, I wish it took something less than obvious genocide and a near-global consensus that these are crimes against humanity for any sort of media to register it.

I honestly don't understand why Biden is so hawkish on this; it's not like giving Israel carte blanche will get him support from Republicans, and doing it really does appear to divide the left enough to hurt him politically.

Apparently Russia called for a meeting of the UN Security Council to complain about Ukraine fighting back

LOL no fair when you fight back, it's violence! /s

Ehhh. For the range-anxious until charging infra catches up, there can be PHEVs.

I've been excited to have my next vehicle be a BEV for a while now, but having rented a Tesla while on vacation in Michigan (where the infra wasn't exactly good for it) I understand why people might have reservations about jumping in with both feet. Also now that I've interacted with the vehicles and got a better idea of Tesla as a company, I won't be buying one.

For the moment, given my use cases (I periodically have to drive between western WA and central UT) my next vehicle will likely be a PHEV unless there are real breakthroughs in EVs (fuel cells? swappable battery standards?) or charging infra where I need it.

Reagan, like Trump and Bush43, was the face guy connecting to people while behind the scenes the wrecking crew drafted their EOs and delivered on their patronage's shadow agenda.

A lot of what Reagan's admin did was foundational- as head of the executive (which includes regulatory agencies) he had the power to quietly dismantle regulatory agencies, and in so doing hamstring America's capacity to regulate its own affairs at the request of lobbyists that didn't want their industries regulated. His legislative affairs team gutted budgets and raided social security while he charmed audiences and the media.

Oh, no!

Did their feelings get hurt?

That's just a shame, if it keeps going like this anyone that acts like an antisocial asshole could be criticized for it, too.

It's a slippery slope, y'all /s

That's a lot of words to say "Trump plans to lie his ass off and attack anyone enforcing the laws"

Oh I hope those 200 people are very uncomfortable

Maga people said they would do this

Maga people called for things like this to happen

Maga people have been making threats that this sort of thing would be done

Maga cops can't figure out why anyone would do this

Well, good.

Yes, telling the truth that he's in legal trouble is "propaganda" and it hurts his political prospects. MAGA Attorney solution: Lie!

LOL I just remembered that some folks in the anti-covid-vax/maga category have been referring to the mRNA covid vaccines as 'the cancer vaccines' based on disinformation that they would 'interact with your genes' and 'give you cancer in 2 years'

Seeing this headline [Moderna’s mRNA cancer vaccine works even better than thought] I had to look to see if it was the cancer-targeting vaccine or some mouth-breathers talking about the covid ones 😅

Can US representative just blatantly undermine US foreign policy, or is this one of those things where it’s wrong but won’t be pursued in any official way?

Well, there's the the Logan Act [18 U.S.C. § 953], which on its face seems to make that sort of thing illegal:

Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

Buuuut: there appears to be no history of prosecuting people under this act despite it being enacted for 200 years, so don't expect it to be enforced

https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/RL33265.pdf

Well, yeah.

If you agreed to work hard and sacrifice on the expectation that it would mean you could live with security and dignity and the promise wasn't fulfilled, that's the classic breach of the social contract.

Granted, the Dems (since the 1980s) have been enthusiastic partners in looking the other way when mergers&acquisitions led to monopoly or monopsony, and both parties have happily suppressed wages, and that's the damage done.

Now that the Dems are actually doing yeoman's work re: bolstering unions and raising wage minimums and checking monopoly abuse and price gouging and reining in the banks, OF COURSE the media are going to gamely report that high prices hurt but not mention that they're working on the problems in meaningful ways

I wish the media wouldn't give politicians that say 'x costs too much' a free pass. Often, not doing x can cost more than doing it and rhetorically hiding behind 'it costs something' leaves the reader to assume it's reasonable to not do x because of cost.

For example, it costs something to put a homeless person in an apartment and give them time with a social worker- and the alternative to doing that (which involves paying cops to move them around and destroy their stuff, to investigate the crimes homeless people are perpetrators and victims of, to process them in and out of local emergency rooms, etc) costs substantially more than putting them in housing.

If feeding kids at a rate of $40/month is too expensive, what is the cost of not feeding them? (There's the expenses of being sick, of acting out and involving disciplinary action or just taking class time, and let's not forget that opportunity cost from not developing kids to their potential if they aren't getting proper nutrition) It's well-understood that nutritional poverty involves foregoing brain development to a child's full potential, and that in turn costs society whatever capacity that kid doesn't get to fulfill as a consequence. Not feeding kids is a way to keep your country under-performing and given the GOP's politics I honestly think they need that in their voters.