IHeartBadCode @ IHeartBadCode @kbin.social

Posts

2

Comments

750

Joined

2 yr. ago

Issue 1895 opened and patch purposed for the core issue. The markdown editor does no escaping input on custom emojis. This is likely why users on app were seeing text and not getting the redirect.

nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

— 14th Amendment Section 1 US Constitution

No person, not citizen, NO PERSON, may be denied equal protection of the laws within the jurisdiction of the United States.

Your argument is moot.

You feel Florida being able to unilaterally dictate validity of state documents is okay?

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

— Article IV Section 1 US Constitution

[The Congress shall have Power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes

— Article I Section 8 Clause 3 US Constitution

Florida doesn't seem to have authority to just unilaterally dictate these things. It would seem that they must work with Congress to implement such regulation. The entire point the framers of the Constitution placed on the State system in Article IV of the Constitution is to:

1. Protect their rights to regulate their citizens
2. Prevent the abuse of them regulating other State citizens.

Florida's move to attempt to apply some pressure to citizens from other states is a direct violation of the core ethos that the framers of this nation wanted to have. If Florida wants to regulate Floridians into a fine mushy pulp, that is Florida's prerogative. Additionally, if Florida wants to prosecute someone from another State for violation of a law that Florida has, that's fine too. Where the line is crossed is when in the carriage of enforcing that law, it requires Florida to openly question another State's issuing documents. That is the violation.

Florida MUST work with Congress to implement the requirements for this framework that they have set up to function. Florida has not done so, they have forgone coming to the table to discuss the issue with the various States and decided to act in a unilateral manner. I get they want to clamp down on immigration, they must do so according to the laws that are set forth and must do so in good faith with the other States. This is neither.

The would still need a reason to stop

The reason to stop comes up only if your lawyer brings it up. A public defender isn't going to bring it up because it requires being able to build enough doubt to have the judge inquiry. And a judge is going to be less favorable in giving a benefit of the doubt for a public defender. If you cannot afford a lawyer, you're less likely to afford the filing should the court go down that road of police inquiry.

This is why most people who go with public defenders just go with simple bench arranged plea deals. The vast majority of people pulled over aren't going to have the resources to challenge this. That's the entire point.

29 USC § 203 (m)(1) authorizes 29 CFR § 531.34. The current rule making from the Secretary of Labor (q) is as:

Scrip, tokens, credit cards, “dope checks,” coupons, and similar devices are not proper mediums of payment under the Act.

This all is found in the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, public law Pub. L. 75-718

@elonjet@mastodon.social for those wondering.

do { alert("Everything is fine!"); } while ( 1 == 1 );

I'll take my six figure salary now.

For those interested. This is similar to Aduhelm in that it is an amyloid binding drug. Amyloids proteins have long been thought to be central to Alzheimer's disease since it was first described by Dr. Alois Alzheimer in 1906, where during his autopsy of a 50-year who died while suffering memory loss, disorientation, and other classical symptoms of the disease noticed "senile plaque" had accumulated on the brain which is usually found in much older patients. In the 1980s chemical analysis of the plaque indicated that it was made of beta-amyloids and from there we've been attempting to target that in order to prevent Alzheimer's disease.

The statement that the drug "will" slow Alzheimer's is editorial so to say. After their third phase trail, the results were sobering.

27% decrease in the rate of progression for patients treated with Leqembi, compared to those receiving a placebo.

Which 27% is still 27%. But this drug is looking to go for a price of $23,000 to $27,000 per year (drug cost alone, infusion and doctor's office visits may shoot this price upward towards $90,000/year). Strangely the article says:

Current rules mean that it’s unlikely to be covered by Medicare.

Which there was Senate hearing where the exact opposite was indicated. Medicaid will likely have the 20% co-pay for patients. That said, for the United States, this drug will be outside of the reach of many not 65 or older.

Additionally, we're still at the nexus of this topic and not knowing full well where to go for the treatment in Alzheimer's. Many competing ideas of the full scope of Alzheimer's disease still exist from tau tangles to neuron degeneration. It's indisputable that beta-amyloids do have a part in Alzheimer's the question remains as to how large a role it plays in mental decline and the low positive outcomes of beta-amyloids has served as fuel for discussion of other ideas. That said, penicillin failed twice in clinical trials, but today nobody would question antibiotic theory, so take the failures with a grain of salt perhaps? But this all does indeed go to show, this area of research is dizzily complex and fluid to say the least.

As for the "first" distinction and that Aduhelm has been FDA approved since 2021. Leqembi is the FIRST to receive the full FDA approval. Aduhelm still operates under the accelerated approval and is still pending a full review. Much like how we had COVID vaccines approved under the accelerated program first and then in 2022 the FDA gave many of them full approval.

It's good this drug has received the first full approval for the treatment of beta-amyloids. But suffice to say, based on the approval material, we still have yet a LONG way to go in Alzheimer's research.

CLOSE THE PLANET! YOU ARE LETTING ALL THE HEAT OUT!!

Now this is some real cities skyline!

Elon can pick a lane about as well as a Tesla.

Society: I accept your terms.

Taylor Taranto, 37, who prosecutors say participated in the Jan. 6, 2021 riot at the U.S. Capitol, kept two firearms and hundreds of rounds of ammunition inside a van he had driven cross-country and had been living in, according to a Justice Department motion that seeks to keep him behind bars

Who would of thought that such an upstanding member of society would do such a thing?

Pretty much 99% of the people who were at the Capitol that day shouldn’t still be walking around in broad daylight.

Nobody wants to be the “bad guy” who just tosses the lot into jail. They want to still present this “even handed” approach. But truth is, every fucker that got off with a slap on the wrist, they’re absolutely going to go for round two. And they’re going to keep going round after round until they’ve killed every last person they disagree with or the justice system locks them away as the traitors to the United States they are.

If this story didn’t convince anyone of that, nothing will.

Okay since I haven't seen it said here so far. Aspartame is being classified as "a possible carcinogen". The reason for that is observational data. We have observed an increase in obesity related cancers in people who also have daily intake of aspartame. This observation is 1.15 times higher than the background rate (people not having daily aspartame and developing obesity related cancers), so that is what is prompting the classification. There is additional research into if this connection is casual (Synchronicity) and it seems that there is some initial evidence to suggest this is more than just a casual connection.

Remember back to science class. We science by making an observation, posing a hypothesis, testing that out, and then drawing conclusions from it. This move is one of the first steps after the observation part in the political sphere. Science is just making an observation, however, governments are free to move in lock step with those observations or wait till science gets a bit further along in the process. Really depends on the flavor of government we're talking about, but the important part is that whole section of the equation is distinctly NOT SCIENCE.

So that said, where everyone else is chiming in on with aloe vera and what not is the classification the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) is placing aspartame into. This is a political group that moves in step with science research. This group has four levels. 1 - You will get cancer, 2a - Pretty likely you will get cancer, 2b - Maybe you might get cancer, 3 - You will not get cancer. Aspartame is being moved into 2b.

There is still a lot of research left to go about the links between aspartame and cancer. For example, aspartame seems to only cause cancers typically related to obesity, so is it the cause or are obese people just selectively drinking it? This is what I referred to at the start as a casual connection. BUT, there is a whole process before we can technically say "YES". So that process must happen first. But there's going to be people who attempt to say "well yes, obese people get obese cancers, duh" and initial evidence suggests that there is a bit more that we ought not to just hand wave away.

As for what you SHOULD do. You should do what you feel is best. If it puts your mind to ease to nix aspartame from your diet, you should most absolutely do that. But yes Coke Zero has the exact kind and chemical make up of sweetener that Diet Coke has. So if that is the thing you are trying to excise, Coke Zero is not a respite.

I'm pretty sure that I'm replying to you.

Kennedy defended the article insisting no one has shown “one mistake” he made in the article

That's not how fact works. I can make some statement but that statement doesn't pass into "fact" just because no one has yet to provide a list of where I got it wrong. One is required to provide evidence to establish fact.

Here's an excerpt from RFK's paper.

But instead of taking immediate steps to alert the public and rid the vaccine supply of thimerosal

And here's the deal. Thimerosal is a preservative in vaccines. It's used to keep bacteria from growing in vaccines. However, the US goes through so much so quickly in terms of those vaccines that they give you at birth, that we just simply do not need to add a preservative in them. So the claim here is just baseless to begin with. The preservative just simply is not present in childhood vaccines. Where you will likely find it, is in vaccines that need to be shelf stable for long periods of time. Such as things like the flu vaccine. And absolutely NOT the COVID vaccine that needs refrigeration. There's literally no need for a preservative there because we keep it cool.

The component that likely triggers fears is the breakdown of Thimerosal into Ethylmercury C₂H₅Mg⁺ which has been shown to be toxic and indeed Thimerosal does indeed get eventually processed into this compound. However, the body DOES indeed expel ethylmercury in three to seven days. So, NO, it does not stay inside your body. We have thousands of studies that indicate this.

What one might have heard is something called methylmercury, which is very bad for humans but there is no means chemically to convert thimerosal into methylmercury in vivo. We've done studies on that too.

So with that said, does the ethylmercury in vaccines raise a cause for concern? Absolutely not. The amount required to keep a vaccine fresh is orders of magnitude smaller than what you'll likely find in your everyday food, especially fish. You will likely get thousands of times more ethylmercury in a single can of tuna than you will in a single childhood vaccine. So if vaccines prose a problem for a person, literally ALL FOOD on the planet Earth poses a much higher risk by massive values. And this is the thing that RFK's paper completely avoids if you ignore the inaccuracies of the chemical composition of childhood vaccines that he routinely makes.

So:

• One, childhood vaccines DO NOT have the chemical that is routinely cited as the cause for autism.
• Two, the chemical that is routinely cited is found in the vast majority of food being ingested.
• Three, no person has put forward a model that accurately presents a lab repeatable process by which this chemical would cause such a condition.
• Four, evidence suggests that autism is a genetic disorder and is indeed NOT an environmental disease.
• And five, and most importantly, the vast majority of "doctors" hocking the vaccine-autism connection are doing so for finical gains, so literally they're just wanting to use people's ignorance for monetary gain.

RFK is no different in this regards. This paper was a precursor to his book (which I will not link here, but you can easily find it) and he commonly thumps his paper as a commercial for his book. And some might point to pharmaceuticals as just big "ad machines" and the difference is that the claims made in drug ads is peer reviewed. The claims in RFK's book are backed up by: The College of Shit Mr. Kennedy Just Pulled Out His Ass™. I fail to understand how the same people that fear "big pharma" trying to fleece the public is also the same people who gladly get fleeced by people who are distinctly "not doctors". I grant anyone that the way modern medicine is marketed is shitty. That is less a problem with science and more a problem with capitalism, but that is as far as I will open that Pandora's box. So if anyone has beef with medicine, it's likely you have more an issue with something distinctly NOT SCIENCE.

The only thing that has been proven that vaccines cause is less dead children. There are too many studies with millions of points of evidence that back this unifying claim up, for alternatives claiming the opposite to even remotely hold a candle to. Simple fact, childhood vaccines save lives and the vast ocean of evidence backing that claim up is overwhelming in comparison to the paltry offering of anecdotal conjecture offered by the opposition.

More importantly this:

This is my view. Other people have different views on this. I think apologizing makes you weak.

This is what cultivates the "never admitting wrong and always attempting to be right" on literally everything. Making people afraid or scared to be "wrong" is absolutely the most incorrect thing possible. We learn best when we self identify our own mistakes.

This whole mentality is literally the number one thing I hear people hate the most on the Internet. Trial and error is a fundamental method of problem solving and if you teach people that being wrong is "weak" then you literally subvert the most basic ability to problem solve.

There could not have been a more wrong bit of advice this person could have given. This is literally the number one thing that makes public discourse even harder to do. My bit of free advice is to literally NOT view apologies as weakness. You will always be an infinitely better person if you just simply DO NOT DO this one thing that Christian Ziegler has indicated.

𝕱𝖎𝖓𝖊! 𝓛𝓮𝓽'𝓼 🅂🄴🄴 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕞 ѕ¢яαρ 𝔱𝔥𝔦𝔰!

Tell me who's your tree man and how that crisp is so good? You's a superstar apple, why you still in the woods? What in the world is in that BAG, what you got in that BAG? A couple of hives of honey bees, you did a good job of pollinating me, growing me.