branon

But it seems we agree that my highly generalized social construct wouldn't invalidate the biological factors at play that expose more specific racial groups to higher/lower risk of certain conditions.

My fear is that we have to make certain we are only removing the social constructs and not the biological ones when we purge racial considerations from medicine. Quality of patient care will inevitably suffer otherwise.

Actually looking this up, seems the notion of race as social vs biological is hotly contested. This is new to me! Fair to say it's a social construct with a biological cause and potential biological implications, then?

I'm all for knocking down biases, just don't want to throw out good data in the process. What's the margin of error on dark skinned people with sickle cell?

Or perhaps more relevant - black people's kidneys were thought to be _healthier_ when it turns out they're 3x more likely to have kidney disease. At first glance this sounds like a very large error but I'm interested in how much of that is biological vs societal risk. Is it really as big of an error as it sounds? What if they start out with healthier kidneys, the +3x comes from somewhere else, and we're correcting far too late in the game when we jostle the transplant line?

Interesting conjecture there AP, but I don't buy it. Surely race is a biological factor. Maybe not for kidney health specifically but wouldn't race be inextricably tied to a person's biology, heritage, medical history?

Race is determined at birth by parents' biology, therefore is biological. Not _everything_ that makes people different from one another is a purely social construct.

Don't black people get sickle cell at higher rates than other races? Race is important in a lot of medical contexts.

Great that they fixed the kidney thing but don't throw the baby out with the bathwater, or the next headline will be "excess deaths due to incorrect treatment of <condition> for <race>".

By all means if the race-based heuristics are unsound, throw them out, but the article makes mention of a bunch more that are under scrutiny. Are they really all inaccurate or are we discounting biology in favor of social justice?

I think the correct term here would be "on-premises".

A premise and a premises are not related concepts except in the sense that the "premise" of this comment is to let you know that "premises" is the correct term to use.

I'll also accept "on-prem" because it could reasonably be a shortened form of "on-premises" (even though most people probably don't realize this and are instead reinforcing their misconception when they use it).

Now the OLED is out, they're discontinuing the LCD models. Good thing I got two then! Feeling pretty vindicated about this.

It's all a matter of perspective. Be happy you snagged one of the rare, discontinued SKU ;)

Especially if Dragons Dogma 2 is getting this same DRM, I would rather they break/fix existing titles and apply that work to DD2, versus launch it with zero support and I wind up unable to play! It's a process.

Seems overblown. This isn't "disinformation" it's just people talking. You could have any number of perfectly valid reasons for saying that clean energy might not benefit you. Or for maligning policy or its advocates, which is exactly what this article is doing when they take a quote from Jordan Peterson out of context... and hilariously it doesn't even support their argument! He doesn't _do_ any of the things the article is complaining about in that quote:

> “The idea that we can make the planet more habitable on an environmental, on the environmental front by impoverishing poor people, by raising energy prices and food prices, is absolutely, it’s not only absurd logically, but I think it’s tantamount to genocidal,”

Is this not a reasonable and true statement? I believe it is: poverty, high prices, and genocide certainly will NOT help fight climate change, at least not without unbearable human cost. Clean energy, environmental policies, science and advocacy would be better, but this article never gets out of its own way long enough to actually say that bit.

> They used an AI tool called CARDS to sort different kinds of false claims about climate change and how frequently they occurred.

Here's the problem. The same busted AI model they fed all their YouTube data into is probably what wrote this article. Next!

The future of the Internet truly is people - the machines can no longer be trusted to perform even the basic tasks they once excelled at. They have eschewed their efficacy at basic tasks in favor of being terrible at complex tasks.

Thankfully all the config files are plain text and can be manipulated however you like. It is usually not too difficult to take working config while fixing or disusing problematic files.

Subaru sells first-party remote start units which operate this way. They also have a subscription service that offers remote start, but make no mistake: if your carmaker ONLY allows remote start with a subscription and won't install a standalone unit, you are being had.

If the man calls and says come down to get your food, your options at that point are a) come down to get your food, or b) refuse delivery.

Anything else is out of scope here, _including_ the notion that the delivery person was supposed to deliver upstairs and is refusing. While it might be an inconvenience, it's really not your problem as a customer. What are you going to do about it anyway? Argue? That'll just get you posted on tiktok.

It's the company's problem, and it's a self-correcting evolution - given enough instances, presumably that person won't be allowed to handle deliveries anymore, OR you wouldn't patronize that service any longer.

Now, you may have already switched delivery services when the recalcitrant delivery person is replaced with someone more amenable to delivering upstairs. But either way, the problem is solved.