Just for the record: in the comments section of a post about a news article in a news community, you described a story about how you read what the lead says when you took a quick glance at the article.
We’re talking about an “article” that is shown as a “2 minute read”, and takes about 30 seconds to read.
Fun fact: the demographic in which Trump gained the most before the 2024 election was “people who don’t read news daily”.

I didn’t say a word about healthcare though.

The guy who killed Hitler is Hitler you very dumb person.

Oligarchs are persons, not corporations. An executive is an employee of a corporation. Examples for current American oligarchs include Elon Musk and Peter Thiel, not employees of the companies they own.

So he didn’t commit it, but he’s also a hero for doing it? (The thing he didn’t do)

What action are you taking about? Shooting a guy in the head? What problem does that exactly solve? He didn’t even shoot an oligarch, he shot an executive.

Saying “insurance should be illegal” is very near the top of the list of stupidest things that one can say.

You also need to work more on your radical proportionality idea.

I believe in radical proportionality, thus what you give is what you deserve to receive back, exactly, no more and no less (if you give someone five punches in the face with a given force, you deserve exactly five punches in the face with an amount of force proportional to your resistance).

I don’t know what you even mean by “proportional to your resistance” and how you quantify punch force and resistance, but if it’s exactly no more and no less than what you got, how is it also proportional to something else? Like I can’t eat exactly 2 pounds of ice cream, proportional to my belly circumference. It’s either one or the other.

Killing somebody is a pretty intense act, I imagine. A sane person doesn’t take another’s life in cold blood. What LM did is not a sane thing to do, regardless of what one thinks about the victim and the victims’ personal responsibility in other people’s suffering. Because it is not a sane thing to do, it’s futile debating its rationale.

I also don’t think that this murder should get special treatment on some utilitarian grounds, such as because it’s a heroic act that saved the lives of millions. I don’t think there is any concrete benefit of the murder on any specific healthcare, welfare, or health equity issue. Where are the masses who got their health back thanks to LM?

So what are you exactly celebrating? What would the statues commemorate? A poor insane man, killing a company executive, replaceable as a professional in the organization, and irreplaceable as a person in his family. Pure insanity and suffering, with no benefit, no winners. It’s a fucking sad and tragic story. It’s a powerful story undeniably, that’s why people follow it, but there is nothing to celebrate about it.

Fuck, the fact that this hateful, stupid, and barbaric comment sits here with 19 upvotes and zero downvotes kind of shatters my illusions about what kind of people I am interacting with here. Enough scrolling for me.

Hydrogen doesn’t just spontaneously bind to oxygen, so they aren’t the most willing chemical partners.

Somebody go tell the Hindenburg!

No, it’s unlikely that a cause follows it’s effects in time. Usually we think a cause happens first and then an effect follows.

Yes, I tried both before going self hosted; and both try very hard to make your life difficult if you don’t subscribe. Actually I got hooked on RSS with Google Reader, which was a perfect, simple, free reader. It got shut down, because I guess it doesn’t make sense to provide that service for free.

deleted by creator

Update: On Wednesday, June 10, the chief executive officer of the ADA, Charles Henderson apologized in a video statement.

Today is July 23, next time please repost a less outdated article.

She died in kidney failure and thrombotic microangiopathy, not an allergic reaction. They did test for antibodies against the virus. The injection was directly into the cerebrospinal fluid, not exactly the same exposure you get with a skin allergy test.

Wtf. If she died from the dna editing, doing the test you mention wouldn’t have prevented it. If she died from the formulation, she would have died from the test you talk about. I don’t see a scenario where a test with a control virus makes a difference.

Neither of those things is what the patient received. Do you mean they should test the vector without the payload on the patient? If the adverse reaction is to the vector, the patient would then experience the negative effects without a chance of getting any benefits. So why not give the real thing then? If you mean a control vector should be tested on healthy volunteers, idk, maybe, but it’s hard to come up with a relevant control that certainly doesn’t do anything to dna.

How? I mean the way every drug for example is tested for safety, they give it to people (healthy volunteers) in escalating doses, and watch them for adverse effects.
Rarely, it happens that a drug that was expected to be safe based on animal testing turns out to be dangerous in humans, and healthy volunteers die. It’s a tragedy, it happens rarely, but it happens, and safety trials are still the best way to start the process of clinical trials for new drugs. For some treatments, such as gene therapy, it’s not ethical to ask a volunteer to just try it to see if it’s safe. So they look for sick people, who are consenting to risking a new treatment with unproven safety, because their other choice is to not be treated.
This is how it’s always done. I wonder what you mean when you say the treatment should be tested for safety before giving it to patients.

Edit: this was a personalized experimental treatment developed specifically for this girl, on the parents’ initiative. The clinical team did test for antibodies against the virus before injecting the AAV into the csf. Lots of shady and wrong things on the research side, I’m not protecting them, just disagreeing with the previous comment that this tragedy would have been prevented by a simple test.

There is something weird about this plot. I think because the calories are normalized to weight and the price is normalized to calories, there is no interesting interaction between the two, looking at it feels like reading a table. You can check which food is expensive and which is calorie dense and that’s it. Perhaps it would be more interesting to look at if both calories and price were normalized to weight…

If I wanted to hide something from the authorities, I wouldn’t do it using a system whose defining feature is that all transaction data is visible to anyone.

Thats’s comparable to a single strand of spaghetti holding up about 3,300 one-pound bags of sugar

Dear lord I really needed that to be brought down to my level. If they just say 3300 pounds, I have no idea how heavy that is.