derf82 @ derf82 @lemmy.world

Posts

1

Comments

875

Joined

2 yr. ago

I never said it was exactly the same. And San Francisco has its own risks besides fire. And heck, I’d call Paradise a city, too.

If selling insurance to California was a good business, they wouldn’t leave the market.

Climate change will be doing a lot of that, like it our not.

But at the very least, the rest of us shouldn’t have to subsidize it. I’m tired of my insurance in the Great Lakes region skyrocketing because of disasters in CA or the gulf coast.

What gentlemen’s club takes money from women and then denies them entry?

Therein lies the problem. They want a woman-only exhibit, then they need to deny men admission from the museum in entirety. But that would probably be detrimental to the museum’s bottom line. But you can’t take money from men and then deny equal access, nor can you do it to women.

Ah, yes, the guy that forced his daughter to get a staring role in Avatar playing a 100% API role.

Infill development in the middle of a city can be just as disaster prone and those in a forest or on the ocean.

No insurance companies care. They are all in business to make money. I can’t blame them for not wanting to insure a disaster-prone area.

And you wouldn’t want to see your mortgage rate if that mortgage was no longer secured with a collateral asset, which is what a mortgage without insurance would essentially be. Unsecured debt always has much higher rates. You are better off with insurance. You pay one way or another.

The only one forcing people to have homeowners insurance is mortgage companies, that want to ensure the collateral on that mortgage doesn’t disappear.

That and common sense, as even if you don’t have a mortgage, you also don’t want a disaster to make your largest asset go poof.

There is competition. That is meant to keep prices lower. But insuring people in disaster prone areas just isn’t a wise business decision.

I get no paywall. I’m betting you want to stay willfully ignorant. Where do you think Assange/wikileaks got the info from the DNC?

Try Wikipedia

On December 9, 2016, the CIA told U.S. legislators that the U.S. Intelligence Community concluded Russia conducted operations during the 2016 U.S. election to prevent Hillary Clinton[13] from winning the presidency.[14] Multiple U.S intelligence agencies concluded people with direct ties to the Kremlin gave WikiLeaks hacked emails from the Democratic National Committee.[14]WikiLeaks did not reveal its source. Later Julian Assange, founder of Wikileaks, claimed that the source of the emails was not Russia or any other state.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Democratic_National_Committee_email_leak

The point is, it was selective. Russians hacked BOTH the RNC and DNC, then only sent the DNC information to Wikileaks. Assange was a moron that did exactly what Putin wanted him to and selectively hurt Democrats to help Trump.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/2016/12/10/report-russian-hackers-had-rnc-data-but-didn-t-release-it

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/how-the-russians-hacked-the-dnc-and-passed-its-emails-to-wikileaks/2018/07/13/af19a828-86c3-11e8-8553-a3ce89036c78_story.html

Then maybe don’t start shooting when agents come to your door with a valid search warrant.

You challenge things in court, not with a gun.

Hilary was less god-awful than Trump, and the leaks absolutely damaged her campaign. You sound like you are ok with Putin interfering with our elections.

Also, I don't really feel empathetic towards Assange, he acted as a Russian mouthpiece with his show on RT and his interference in the 2016 US presidential election.

I wish more people would see this. He isn’t some freedom fighter. He happily became Putin’s useful idiot and published the selective leaks Russia provided to swing the 2016 election to Trump. I find it hilarious that after that, Trump wanted to kill him.

You are being intentionally obtuse. Thank for helping climate change to kill us.

men are certainly experiencing the artwork as it’s intended

Perhaps that is the intent of the curator, but what evidence is there this is what the artists intended. Picasso write somewhere “I only want the ladies to see this one?”

It’s a dumb approach that will not make the point the curator thinks it will make. And I bet that person would be pissed if there were a male-only exhibit.

Exclusive men’s social clubs have existed all over the world, including Canada and particularly thrived in the 19th century. These exclusionary clubs often only accepted white members and barred women from entering the space,

And those clubs didn’t deny women access after they paid for admission

You said it comes with side effects as of to say EVERY patient will deal with them. And you act like doctors hide the risk of complications. As an actual patient, absolutely not! My first appointment, I was given a book produced by out program highlighting common issues and how to mitigate/prevent them to the extent possible.

You clearly want to discourage bariatric surgery. I want to encourage people to make the best decision for themselves in conjunction with their medical team.

Dumping syndrome is avoidable by not consuming too much sugar. And it is not an issue for people that receive a gastric sleeve.

Vitamin malabsorption is easily addressed with vitamin supplements.

Most bariatric programs restrict patients from consuming alcohol for 6 months and more. The risk comes from transfer addiction, which also is an issue for all overeaters making changes.

You know what else causes many of those side effects? MORBID OBESITY.

This is absolutely healthier. My doctor recommended it for years and I finally went through it. The constant hunger is gone. I’ve give from being winded and in pain after walking a quarter mile to being able to walk several miles pain free.

You know when I first saw my surgeon, he told me the same thing you said at the end: it isn’t about being thin, it’s about being healthy. Heck, he specifically said I’d never be thin.

I tried to make changes for years, lost lots of weight multiple times, only to see it go right back on and then some. Every time it was harder. I needed something that would help keep it off. The best medical data told me surgery was the best bet for that.

And I know what you are thinking: bariatric surgery is cheating, it’s the east way out. NOT ON YOUR LIFE. I had to lose weight before surgery. I had to meet with psychiatrists, cardiologists, pulmonologists, and nutritionists. I had to go on an extreme pre-surgery diet, then have only a liquid diet for 3 weeks, and soft foods for 5 more weeks. I get nothing with more than 5 grams of sugar for 6 months. And not one single cheat day is allowed or even possible. And that is aside from a painful surgery and recovery. It is no shortcut.

It’s also worth noting it is only available to people with a BMI over 40 or over 35 with a significant comorbidity like diabetes. People that need to lose a few pounds cannot get it, it’s only people needing significant weight loss.

So, to be frank, you have no idea what you are talking about. Being fat is unhealthy, but the best medical advice to reduce obesity you think is wrong. Guess people like me should just die?

No, I think we should listen to our doctors, not judgmental people on the internet citing misleading facts. The research shows bariatric surgery has better, healthier results.

More studies: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8012340/

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1700459

https://www.niddk.nih.gov/about-niddk/research-areas/obesity/longitudinal-assessment-bariatric-surgery

Rapid changes in weight tho, in either direction, are well established for having permanent harmful effects. It also tends to make it more difficult to maintain weight loss, and more likely someone actually increases in weight over time.

This is a valid criticism of the Biggest Loser, but My 600 Lb Life generally culminates with bariatric surgery, which has some of the best long term outcomes for maintaining weight loss.