Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)HI
Posts
2
Comments
687
Joined
2 yr. ago

  • The US has laws that bans paying for blood, but they can pay for plasma. All healthcare in the US is a for profit venture.

    If you donate blood in the US, you are the only one in that process who is making a donation. Every other organization in the chain between your donation and the patient who receives it will add a markup for their own profit.

    Organ donations work the same way. If you get killed by a car, and your heart is used to save someone's life, they will be charged nearly two million dollars for the operation. Not only does your next of kin not get a cut of that two million, your estate will still get a bill for whatever treatment failed to save your life.

    I can think of little that is more unethical than being the only one donating. Plasma is better because the donors are paid. If healthcare is for profit, at minimum the profits should go both ways. Plasma is the one time it does.

  • To translate further:

    BEV - self explanatory never mind

    NGDV - Oshkosh Next Generation Delivery Vehicle, The new mail truck that looks like a duck

    LLV - The Grumman Long Life Vehicle, the classic mail truck.

    and as a bonus

    FFV - The Ford-Utilimaster Flexible Fuel Vehicle, the early 2000s mail truck that looks like the LLV that you buy from wish.

  • This has been solved by modern technology.

    Mirrors in the olden days were made with silver, and because silver is the good pure metal it refuses to reflect the evil vampires, hence the lack of reflection.

    Modern mirrors lack silver so they will reflect vampires just like everyone else!

  • Sounds like you want trademark reform.

    There are basically no requirements for maintaining trademarks. If a company owns a name they can use that name and branding forever, no matter how false it becomes, no matter how much the business or product changes, they can keep the name. This shouldn't be the case.

    If an ice cream company is named after their two founders, the company shouldn't be able to keep using their names after they're no longer involved. But under current laws they can.

    A glass company can build its reputation on making heatproof glass, then change the glass so its no longer heatproof, while still selling it under the same name. This is unjust.

    Companies should be forced to rebrand upon major changes. Current trade mark laws are fundamentally misleading.