docbrown

Retracted and sham papers is actually a major problem. Estimated 10,000 papers were retracted in 2023 (https://www.theguardian.com/science/2024/feb/03/the-situatio...) and that is thought to be only a small percentage.

Barely half have some sort of 401k program and the average holding amount is only $40,000. Nothing to really gloat about.

Earners of $100,000/year or more have 5x the amount in holdings as compared to those earning $99,000 or below.

Only 14% of Americans are invested in individual stocks outside of a 401k program.

401k assets only amount to 17% of the total US retirement.

None of these numbers tell a great story because Americans are not saving for retirement. If they are, they’re barely saving a years worth of their salary.

Of course stocks have real tangible value or else we wouldn’t be able to buy and sell them. They’re not something that you barter with.

However, the majority of Americans do not associate stocks with voting rights. Only a slim minority of Americans own stocks to begin with!

Most laymen investors or readers believe that the stock market is an indication of how well our economy is doing — which it’s not.

The value of the stock market, like you said, is based on the buyers expectations. Which is what I said: the market is controlled by institutions and money managers. Those are the majority of your buyers.

Personally, I think letting people go there own way as much as possible is the best course, and empowering the United Nations is pretty much the opposite of that.

As in a Native American reservation type of self localized governing? That’s the only way I could see any good coming from separating each individual locality apart and attaching their own executive branch to it. We currently have 50 seperate states which almost govern in that way but they still must answer to an executive branch and that can be confusing.

Should one branch have a say in all local decisions? Who gets to decide on which person makes those decisions for all? My fear would be that governing completely independent of any other branch could also lead to authoritarianism: if one person persuades the locals they have the best mind to guide them through troubles, they’d ultimately have the final say in decision making once they gain their trust and the ability to govern.

(Apologies if formatting makes it sound confusing, I jumped off my laptop and am instead currently using mobile. Will edit to clarify any discrepancies.)

Perhaps we may not need to agree on every topic but there must be a discourse happening between each other in good faith. This rarely happens in our current political climate as most people (using Twitter as a sample group) is hyperreactive to any sort of criticism from their opponent.

If we, or all nations, want to come together, our first step is to recognize the importance of the United Nations. If we are able to understand that the United Nations can be an apolitical checks and balance to all countries, it may be a major step forward.

An ideal theory is that all countries begin living by the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights[1]. Incorporate this into the foundation of your countries government and it sets a tone and example for which type of moral values you prioritize within your borders.

[1] https://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/ind...

I really hope these past eight months cement the idea in more peoples head that the stock market has little correlation to reality.

It fluctuates based on personal sentiment from institutions and money managers. Political policies may drive the market to react in a certain way from time to time but the only real 'direct' effects come from whichever Fed Chair is appointed at the time.

but policy-wise he didn't really make any horrible decisions.

This is where the problem lies within our current political discourse: both parties have fundamental differences within themselves on what they view as being morally on the up-and-up.

Both parties view certain demographics in their own way and this allows them to engage in policies that allow them to accomplish their end goal while never causing harm -- because they genuinely believe they are not causing harm to anyone. They're only following through on policies that match their moral compass.

Until this country has a reckoning on what its fundamental values should be, there will always be a sense of distrust and skepticism between each other.

Reeder was a great app even when used on the iPhone 4, granted it was the best one out as the time. I believe Reeder 3 was the final version I bought before phasing out of using RSS. My Main Twitter account was started in 2009 so I think it’s fair to say that by 2013 there was more interesting real-time coverage becoming readily available through other sources instead of a RSS feed.

Now, as someone who has not used RSS since then, do all or many websites still have/advertise RSS feeds? I imagine each section now has their own obscure URL instead of a main feed hidden away in menus but I don’t know. Or if modern apps have a Internet-wide search where you can simply time in “News Site X” and it’ll populate their feeds.

Twitter has become easy to digest but I’d much rather prefer my news coming in vanilla again.

I don’t think they should or ever will step away from wood bats. It’s one of the few things that levels the playing field for all batters; instead letting brute force be the power behind the contact.

Aluminum and corked bats would ultimately give an unfair advantage to the user as compared to a wood slugger. It’s fine in minor league and collegiate sports as they do not follow the MLB’s stricter regulations but if they plan to aim for the major leagues, they should start training with wood.

—

On second thought, I think the only time there would be a change is if there were a noticeable impact on the environment and the amount of word being cut to produce bats. But since America’s trademark sport is baseball, I do not see this happening any time soon.

It surprises me that 5 of 200 that do so well actually enlist.

I’m generalizing here, but: No matter what their score was (high or low), most people are going to take the ASVAB because they want to join the military and reap the benefits of it (i.e. TRICARE, GI bill). We can’t forget that military granted health insurance covers around 3-4% of the total insured (US Census, 2019, p.3)[1]. It is also a heavily road traveled road out of poverty for many POC and low-income students. There’s a reason you see more military recruiters in counties, states, and especially schools which have a overall lower income level. But we must also remember we do not know where their true interests lie. Or if they’d be able to — or even want to — handle efficiently the responsibility of being in a higher education setting as opposed to the more structural hierarchy of the military.

However, this does not take away from the fact that some of those 5 people may have a certain given ability to excel in a field that only the military provides. They may want to take that skill all the way to an Officer position instead of working up a corporate ladder. Say geography for example. Someone may have an educational knack for it and perhaps they change their military career goals toward something more technical (cyber defense, intel) instead of labor intensive (infantry). Either of these career choices would only be possible in a military setting. (Lucrative military contractor and paid mercenary jobs are moot points for this discussion.)

In the end, I do not think the ASVAB should be looked at as a moment of enlightenment the same way the SAT would be. They are serving two different purposes and a majority of people sitting in the recruiters office already have their mind made up; it’s now just a matter of figuring out which base you’re attending for training and how long it’ll last.

1: https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publicatio...

Edit: Just saw your reply to another user.

I think you’re missing a major point: Not everybody wants to go to college. Yes there are ROTC programs and you’ll be commissioned as an officer after 4 years BUT you still have to attend school.

If someone does not want to attend higher ed, telling them about a stipend and quick ranking will fall on deaf ears. They’re sitting in the recruiters office to find an escape from their current situation and reality. I’d wager most kids do not want to be told “stay in this town for 4 more years and then it’ll be better. Trust me.”

They want to get out NOW and start a new life and a new career. Not be told what they want to do is wrong.

A marketing stunt that involved the police conducting a raid on Jason Chen’s home and then barring Gizmodo from future Apple events? Yeah, that’d be one hell of a PR stunt if it was.

They’re incentives were an attempt to change social media with a more refined version of interactions. Of course getting big names on it early on would drive interest. That sort of business behavior was not done in bad faith.

The problem was that it was subscription based. The interactions between its users were thought out and professional. The trade of journalism itself had nothing to do with its failures — people did not have interest in paying for something they could do for free on Twitter.

Reddit's ban today is the equivalent of them saying "You can't quit, you're fired!".

This implies the Reddit ban is directed toward TD specifically, which it’s not. This is Reddit taking a long-term stance on what type of content they want on their platform. To sit here and downplay its importance is a predictable talking point and just as depressing.

The online digital textbooks and homework, Cengage’s MindTap, requires flash for their statistics portion. Flash is also used for their digital textbook.

I’ll assume this carries over for any type of assignment page that requires input from the user.

Health data related to Native Americans is already highly undercounted and incomplete as compared to other groups. This continued surpression of their ways of living is sad to watch. When NA’s already have little trust in Western medicine, this action by the CDC will do nothing more than erode that relationship further.

[retracted] and I hope this is just a misunderstanding. As the director of the World Health Organization (WHO) said, 2019-nCoV is a novel (new) coronavirus.[0] The CDC defines coronavirus as a virus that was not previously known — check the FAQ, “what is a novel coronavirus?”[0.5]

They changed the name of this coronavirus to reflect the disease more accurately to COVID-19.[1]

The CDC has a list of other coronavirus’ that have existed.[2]

0: https://twitter.com/DrTedros/status/1227297754499764230?s=20

0.5: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/faq.html

1: https://www.who.int/dg/speeches/detail/who-director-general-...

2: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/types.html

——

Edit: Since there seems to be a misunderstanding from everybody’s part on this as it’s referred to as both and often interchangeably in a mainstream setting, take a look at John Hopkins guide: https://www.hopkinsguides.com/hopkins/view/Johns_Hopkins_ABX...

The Lee-Leahy amendment passed the Senate. Not sure how someone can say there is no counter-balancing entity with regard to FISA courts.

From Senator Mike Lee's webpage[0]:

The Lee-Leahy amendment will strengthen third-party oversight of the FISA process. Specifically, it requires FISA court judges to appoint an amicus curae (a neutral third-party observer) in any case involving a “sensitive investigative matter” so long as the FISA court does not determine it to be inappropriate.

The amendment will also empower the amicus to raise any issue with the court at any time and give both the amicus and the FISA court access to all documents and information related to the surveillance application.

0: https://www.lee.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2020/5/senate-pa...

Third parties being able to submit amicus curiaes seem like a counter-balancing entity—dependent on which way they argue.

the previous process which was to just call a judge of a secret FISA court which no one is really allowed to know the details of.

This is simplifying the process to imply it’s nothing more than just a phone call away. I do not think any court works like that. They still have to argue their case before a judge of the court which also allows third parties to submit material in the case.

Simply saying “no one” is suppose to know about these courts is portraying this process as something unconstitutional and nothing more than a secret society of government friends. If by no one you actually mean the public, then you have a point. There’s national security concerns around these type of things that you’re ignorantly ignoring.

You act as if this court has no existed for over 40 years and under multiple administrations from both side of the aisles.

somewhat of a dated article (2010) but the average lifespan of those admitted to nursing homes for EoLC is actually only about six months.[1]

however, some may stay longer, but then they have to worry about their condition worsening and eventually not allowing them to do ADLs (bathing, eating, dressing) on their own. the average length of stay before disablement is close to two years [2]

1: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1532-5415....

2: https://academic.oup.com/biomedgerontology/article/74/6/917/...

Why does it have to be introduced in a “meaningful way” to be relevant? If there was at most a single case of it within the U.S. that would show that the disease spread earlier than what is assumed. Again, your argument rests solely on the idea of there must be thousands of death in order for this disease to exist within the states. That is an odd way to think about this.

It’d also be kind of hard to go back and rerun tests for people during those months, which shows why it’s very difficult to pinpoint when this disease started to really spread. I mean, if France and China both had cases during the month of November and December, you’d be hard pressed to say it’s not possible there were similar cases in the U.S albeit undiscovered.

if someone could point me to a nursing home where 5% of the population died in a week

Sure, if we were talking about mortality rates but we’re not. we’re simply talking about prevalence of COVID prior to the major breakout of February and beyond. These are two completely different things to be looking at.

I’ve worked in nursing homes during that time of December where people were dying. Did we think to send bloodwork off to test for some novel coronavirus? Of course not. Secondly, using the example of a nursing home as the sample population is silly as they are not the ones who were traveling. It’d be their family members and caregivers who traveled and then brought the disease into the facility.

I understand that line of thinking but that would imply the prevalence rate of COVID was in complete parallel with the incidence rate. The former is what we do not know and that's clear when we've had patients labs reran from 2019 and found it was positive for COVID. Government data from China says the first case can be traced back to 17 November 2019 and even then they're unsure if that was patient zero[0]

How many American's were in Asia, China, or surrounding areas between October and December of 2019? How many of them were possibly infected? Nobody knows because there was no plan put in place with regard to travel to mainland China until the end of January 2020; even then since 1 January 2020, there were 430,000 people who traveled from China to the U.S.[1]

0: https://www.scmp.com/news/china/society/article/3074991/coro...

1: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/04/us/coronavirus-china-trav...

I still think there's a possibility this virus was already in the US before 2020.

Yeah, I don’t understand why people are so against the idea of it being in the U.S. before 2020. There’s no possible way we can trace every American who may have traveled within the China region or interacted with another person who was in that region around the start of COVID spreading. Just because there were no official cases of COVID does not mean it was not here.

I had a roommate visit Japan in November. He came back and was extremely ill for about a week. No hospitalizations but he was out of commission and isolated by himself.

I'm not sure I understand this argument. Are you speaking of sick people coming into the hospital during this pandemic or overall? Because I can ensure you, many hospitalizations are not due to a lack of PPE. Broken hips are not caused by a lack of PPE; myocardial infractions are not caused by a lack of wearing gloves; nor is a person falling into a diabetic comma caused by not wearing PPE.

But, if you're talking about during this pandemic, it was inherently clear that there was a lack of supplies to begin with and panic buying/hoarding would not help the situation. Now don't get me wrong, I am not condoning the actions of any government--I feel as if they did drop the ball--but there was a dire need of any available PPE to be given priority to first responders and frontline healthcare workers. When you're physician gets ill and eventually passes, that PT load is now given to another physician who is putting their life on the life. We need to protect those on the frontlines who are protecting us or else there will be nobody left.

I was hoping everyone in the US might be able to buy one.

This burst of PPE being produced in mass quantities are and were never meant to go in the hands of the general public (i.e., non healthcare workers), though. The general public does not need to be walking around with a full face shield, that’ll be a waste of materials, time and money, unfortunately.

As others pointed out, an increased output would not be sustainable long term within the normal body. The physiology behind action potential[1] and refractory period[2] explains how they compliment each other to make sure our system function properly and effective.

1:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Action_potential

2:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refractory_period_(physiology)

As we were told during high school biology: cardiovascular muscle contains vast amounts of mitochondria as compared to other muscle types. Mitochondria are good. Therefore, more and stronger mitochondria = more efficient working muscle tissue.

One of my favorite professors holds a PhD in kinesiology (exercise physiology concentration) and wrote his dissertation on the mitochondria. As he stated many times in class: if you want to have a superhuman composition, acquire more mitochondria. he was always willing to bet his kids entire college tuition funds if you could show him a pill that would produce more mitochondria.

There is no law enforcement action being taken for the NY or CA order. They’re relying on “social-pressure” to keep people inside.

Switch to Simplenote for iOS and then you can sync your Simplenote folder inside Dropbox via nvALT settings.

Now you’ve streamlined your notes.