It's not that employers care about friction. They don't want poor negotiators realizing that could have had more. Unions have had known pay rates for years. Causes no friction whatever if it's clear what gets you what pay. Employers just want employees to undervalue their work so they can pay them less. It's a perfectly valid thing for an employer to lie to you about why and even to try to get the most work for the least pay. You should be attempting to do the same.
Having experience repairing fabrics, but not nearly an expert in it, there is something to be said for the art of it. You need to know how much of the surrounding fabric to anchor your stitches to, how often to double back to lock in the stitches, and very importantly to make sure you're making the stitches tight enough. I'm sure that there's some far better advice out there, but if you sick with it eventually you'll learn to make solid stitching by hand.
My reaction wasn't as severe but I had a taxol based reaction as well. It's a barrel of fun, luckily mine was treatable with Benadryl. I don't envy you or your father.
You're typically donating to patient treatments, which are very expensive, and most treatment options don't work out long term if you're at the point where you're on clinical trials. There's also a lot of pure research into cancer itself.
Some chemotherapy drugs list cancer as a possible side effect, which I thought was funny when they told me. Recurrence is different as it's generally hiding cancer "stem cells" that cause this. There's actually a drug in the works that attempts to activate these and make them more susceptible to standard chemo that I think is cool, but it's a few years before that reaches human trials.
As for lasting results, most aren't cures, it's about improving the overall survivability, meaning time until the next treatment option opens up. A lot of these options give you a few months at most which is a big improvement and gives you a chance until the next thing comes out. The reason for this is that we're commonly talking about late stage cancers (3/4). Early stage cancers that haven't spread are cut out before they spread which is the best possible option as it's the highest likelihood of a cure.
Trials generally have a very specific time frame during the initial setup. Investors don't invest into specific treatments but into the companies, which can often make or break the company. With cancer trials typically this is a few years of studies at most. If results are promising they tend to move forward quickly, otherwise studies end prematurely for patient safety if negative outcome is seen. Neutral results are not uncommon.
Actually they do publish most of the results, it's just negative results don't usually generate lots of press. With cancer patients it's typically late stage cancer patients on clinical trials, many/most of which die regardless of the treatment. A very positive treatment can be on the order of a few months of increased overall survivability on average. Typically this means some patients get a very positive result but most patients have so results either because they aren't a good match for the treatment or are too damaged to live longer anyways due to comorbidities. Unless you're constant following the studies you're unlikely to see the negative results.
Specific cancers at specific stages. Later stage cancer isn't usually considered curable once it's metastasized. They just move to Zero evidence of disease.
This is slightly inaccurate. Pan-cancer treatments are rare but do exist, for example checkpoint inhibitors. They just work differently on every cancer and have different outcomes for each type of cancer. The single biggest factor right now on treatment outcomes is how quickly you find the cancer, because surgery early on is the best treatment, usually followed up with chemotherapy. These "miracle" treatments really are most impactful for late stage patients, especially those that aren't very expressive which means it's harder to find something to bind to the cancer cells and kill them.
If your feet enter my space they become my property to do with as I please. In fact if anything enters my space unannounced I assume it's a gift from the flying gods and act appropriately. This includes people reclining their heads into my face. My heavily breathing onto your face while I stare at you sleeping because you jammed your seat into my knees is just rewards. It helps not being afraid of breaking social niceties in order to enforce them on others who can't be bothered to do them. In the same token poor new parents with screaming babies get my sympathy. It's hard enough trying to coo your child while feeling horrible about messing with everyone around because your family lives somewhere else. Adults and children old enough to know better... That's another story.
I bet you get a lot of crotch in the face for your actions. Hot, seething, sweaty crotch from every person in the middle seat. The reason people choose civility is that eventually everyone benefits. Lack of civility immediately makes it worse for everyone. People in planes are already miserable, no reason to make it worse unless you enjoy causing others misery, which says more about you than anyone else.
No... Uber is not more efficient than a taxi service. They were at one point but now they aren't. Taxi businesses have similar apps, drivers who know the area, and regular hours. If it were more efficient, than they wouldn't have needed all that SV money, they still need SV money while cutting worker wages, commanding a ton of the market, and externalizing most of their costs. There is no way Uber exists without someone dumping money in to keep them artificially in business.
There's only so many computers. Graphic designers deliver an end product regardless of this. The end result is all that matters. The business of Uber is conveying people from point a to point b safely. Their contractors should have the ability to use whatever vehicle safely conveys people from a to b. If they don't have a choice then they are employees not contractors.
Not sure why the article had to bend into politics. There was more than enough evidence to support their position without going into a Democrats versus Trump/DeVoss angle to make a claim that this was somehow Democrats doing. I think it's fair to say that any time you're having an adversarial process it's going to be difficult on both parties, there's clear cases of abuse that are missed, cases of poor/missed communications between people, cases of anger, cases where both parties were in a bad state to make adult decisions. College campuses in particular are, in America, the first time that real responsibilities of the world are levied at many young adults.
When it comes down to it, in cases of date rape, awkward sexual encounters, spousal/lover abuse, and all the messy areas of humanity in between, there's no way to get every bad actor, sometimes there's not enough evidence, and that's a terrible place to have to be. Sometimes the courts and tribunals are going to get it wrong, and that's another terrible place to be. That doesn't mean that we don't do everything within our power to make places of learning, both inside and outside the classroom, as safe as possible. That doesn't mean we ignore our responsibility to each other to attempt to make right cases of provable injustice. That also means that we don't destroy lives without evidence. Difficult decisions are the cornerstone of adult lives.
Meat is heavily subsidized as well. That farmer's markets, small farmers, and vegetable farmers get way less financial assistance than the sugar industry is really weird. Sugar beets, corn, and cane sugar are all pretty large crops that we provide assistance too.
How many conservative white old people are cutting the cord versus the younger tech savvy people? I think that's something that might need to be looked at as well, which might explain the discrepancy. I mean sure there are conservative young people, but they probably aren't watching those shows and are probably watching either other things on Netflix or consuming content elsewhere like Philo with has a lot of "History" Channel conservative bent shows and things like LivePD. The biggest networks in the US are all conservative leaning. I think people are just not used to seeing new content outside the bubble they grew up with. On a sad note, I really miss the days when History Channel had solid history shows instead of the weird mostly garbage factually reality shows they have now.
Yeah those darn kids. Why won't they just get off your lawn. You know who said the same thing you just did? Every generation about the next generation. You can literally go back to how people were complaining books were causing corruption in kids and how things used to be better when. There are more comedy shows available than ever before on television and see the push off s button. Comedy is alive and well, it's just that comedy changes over time and what you find funny, the kids don't find edgy or relevant. Remember when Dane Cook was funny? How about Rodney Dangerfield? Hell, Richard Pryor before Eddie Murphy (Raw is still an amazing set). Comedy will always change and it's a reflection of the society that exists at that time, not the past. Plenty of comedians say really crazy things that don't create a tweet storm. Chris Hardwick survived a tweet storm based on some allegations from his ex and he's doing just fine now. Aziz Ansari seems to be humming along just fine too. I think the real point is that the kids are okay. You don't need to worry about their sense of humor it's still firmly intact.
I left Netflix because they kept cancelling shows I liked after two seasons and continued to pump out low quality garbage. I think they might be incorrect in their assumptions at this point about just how valuable their offerings are, which isn't very. They have no real good movies, not even old movies, their television shows aren't generally worth getting invested in because they'll cancel them unless it's a super big hit. Why bother sticking around when Hulu or Philo offers more for the same money?
Yes, most of the horrible things that were claimed came to pass. Data caps, getting paid twice for the same stream. Data prioritization, deep packet inspection, DNS injection. Every way imaginable things have gotten worse for consumers save for token and widely woefully poor increases in Internet speeds that most other countries beat for a fraction of the price. Internet prices have also nearly doubled in my area.
Ugh the trackpad that doesn't work when too hot, the constant fan noise, oddly specific hard drives. I've had to fix Macs. I have an entirely different experience, except the battery life which was generally okay depending on what one was doing. We just had insane WiFi issues, screens failing, and tons and tons of fan noise complaints. It wasn't worse than Windows machines but it certainly wasn't better. The aluminum was nice though because it prevented a few cracked screens.
Citing 9/11 is a great example. We have better information of what happened, how people became trapped, and how the response was handled. At the very least family members should be able to obtain access to recordings about their family and callers should be able to obtain their own calls. This isn't some wildly hard concept. Calls to a public entity about private individual happen. Medicine is another field that exists but family members can gain access if needed.
Same here. I buy a lot of textbooks for fun reading myself on topics like economics, physics, and math where the books don't really change much or where the reading is better in book form.
Expands their profits beyond what the market would bear were it not for lock in, lack of competition, and no consumer choice in the way they consume. They only choice you have is not to go to school.
Cengage was terrible to use as a student but it wasn't the worst. Trying to cite the resources from the courseware is impossible as you manually have to type it out removing any benefit and making it literally less useful than a physical book especially if you only have a single screen. The worst online platform I've used it took me a week to figure out the terrible UI to actually use the textbook part, you had to go into the text section, know exactly the section you were going to and then browse the pictures of the physical textbook. Questions for homework build only be accessed through a submenu of this section. Every 10 minutes you'd be prompted to take a break, ruining your concentration, and every hour you'd be signed out. It was a nightmare. I much prefer the books.
The purpose of your trip is actually valid. It can trigger certain customs limitations on monetary value that you can legally return to the country with. It's obtuse, but it's a valid question. It's also important to note that you have zero civil liberties, even as a citizen, within 100 miles of a border to the United States, of which an airport has been considered I've in some cases.
TSA security theatre on the other hand is a whole different ball of wax. Very little of what they do contributes more to security than prior measures or alternative, less intrusive measures. The fact that programs where you can pay to avoid it exist prove this point. They already have the same level of access to every person thorough the dragnet of law enforcement and intelligence databases that every single air traveler gets processed through. When it's trivially easy to spot numerous gaps in security in every single airport I've been to, it's more a statement to the fact that most people are good than it is to the fact that we're good at catching bad guys. An airport just needs to be a less viable target and bad guys will go elsewhere that's easier.
I wouldn't expect that ruling to survive this particular SCOTUS. They've broken years of precedence and created law from thin air that don't exist prior. It's not likely to survive when the pendulum swings on the court again, justice like judicial overreach on anti trust with the previous liberal majority was generally overturned.
They make good products and the military needs good products. I'd much rather they support the military that's generally trying to do the right thing than people trying just to make money.