yosame

Sorry, are you calling California's anti-revenge porn laws unconstitutional censorship?

He had zero government-granted powers to abuse at the time. Whether it's morally ok is a different question, but you can't deny that.

Really the only use case for crypto is breaking/avoiding the law in some way.

> "Sticks and Stones my break my bones but words will never harm me"

Emotions are real, and emotional pain is real. Of course words can hurt you, they evoke emotions.

Well twitter is in more debt than ever, so it might be even more beholden to advertisers now. And as for the technology, they just fired most of their engineers...

> Or that such "assignments" can be made without ending with suicide.

Well for one, it'd cause dysphoria, not necessarily suicide. Some people feel bad their whole lives without killing themselves.

But the main point is, that's why doctors shouldn't do these assignments. Why on earth should the decision of what sex characteristics to have be up to anyone but yourself.

If you say "All apples are red" and I show you a green apple, would that just be nitpicking?

Because biology is far more complicated than the binary presence of an X or Y chromosome.

The easiest way to explain this is that being intersex also exists in biology:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersex_(biology)

> Otherwise Downs syndrome would be its own gender.

Downs syndrome doesn't affect a sex chromosome, while those other ones do? And they affect the presentation of sexual characteristics?

Probably not, unless there's some major changes. It's a fairly unintuitive platform to use, and it's not really scalable.

>People in it for easy money have probably been flushed out of the market by now, the high-hype gains are long gone.

Need no fear, the users of r/cryptocurrency are still somehow filling that niche.

It might reduce prices, but I wouldn't trust pharma companies to put safety over profit. We've seen time and time again that pharma companies will do the bare minimum to prove safety, which has lead to a large amount of harm (see Vioxx, Thalidomide, etc). I don't think reducing what safety measures they have to prove will make therapies safer.

Probably both, they've got to make back the cost of developing and testing the therapy, but there's probably a profit markup on top of that.

Technique videos are actually far more useful than a book, you can actually see the exercise being performed and copy that action.

Flipped learning models suck unless they're done perfectly. And 90% of the time they won't be done perfectly.

In my experience (as a student), what actually ends up happening is that students don't do the lectures, which leads to low engagement with the classwork. This also tends to punish people who fall behind, since class time is useless without doing the prerequisite material.

On the flip side, your ability to do homework with the teacher is limited by class size, which have to be large unless you can find a large supply of teachers and buildings to put them in. So what ends up happening is that you teach yourself, which is great if you're smart or talented enough to do that. But if you're not, it's very easy to fall behind and stay behind with this model.

Two points: the booster wasn't barely tested, it was excessively tested. I don't think you realise how (comparitively) little testing goes into normal drug testing.

Secondly, people need boosters because immunity wanes to both the vaccine and natural infections. In about a year, you will get just as sick again if you get a natural infection, so why wouldn't you get a booster that will give you mild discomfort for a day at most.

Just wait until you find out how literally every drug and medicine is tested

Maybe you could run all your communications through a translator twice (e.g. English -> French, French -> English), and fix any typos?

It would hopefully keep the sentiment while changing the words.

So there's a shortage of human organs in general (especially heart and lungs), which means we need to get them from somewhere.

Using complex routes to secure organ donations isn't a great option, because the viability of organs decrease as time goes on, so there is an effective limit on how far they can travel. It also doesn't help people who are currently ineligible for organ transplants, because their current scarcity means that only prime candidates can get them (otherwise it would be wasteful).

We could change the organ donation system from opt-in to opt-out, but I get the impression that wouldn't be as ethical from a vegan point of view. That also doesn't help the afformentioned distance problems.

Lab grown organs could be a great solution that would actually be better than animal organs, but they're not a viable option yet.

Basically, if we had good options other than xenotransplantation, I would probably agree that it's unethical to use their organs. However, we don't have better options right now (especially ones that can scale to treat everyone that needs an organ), so in my opinion, xenotransplants are better than nothing.

(Also as a side note, a pig that died from natural causes wouldn't be viable for organ transplantation. The pig needs to be physiologically alive for the organs to be viable, and it needs to be genetically modified to not have animal proteins that the immune system can detect).

Then why hasn't the same thing happened to ketamine for the treatment of depression?

Ketamine is widely available and cheap, but the FDA approved esketamine (the S enantiomer of ketamine) and gave the pharma companies a patent for the formulation so they would fund the clinical trials that are needed for it to be used as a treatment of depression.

Esketamine is much, much more expensive than ketamine, and essentially the same molecule, yet it hasn't been 'outcompeted' by ketamine (in the context of treating depression).

Because the new ivermectin (newermectin) would be specifically authorised and used to treat covid, it would have a niche advantage over ivermectin. Ivermectin would still dominate treating parasites, but there would still be good money in developing newermectin.

It's not transient, it's a neurodevelopmental disorder that changes the fundamental structure of the brain and how it functions (this is a bit of a simplification, but it's true enough for this context).

People who 'grow out' of having ADHD either:

1. Developed coping methods that lessened the impact of their symptoms, making them functional enough to not be diagnosable (ADHD is only diagnosed if it negatively impacts your ability to function in two or more of the domains of work, social life, and home/family life). Often people who do this are still negatively impacted by their condition, but their problems are invisible and go unnoticed.

2. Never had ADHD to begin with, and instead had one of the many other psychiatric or physical conditions that can impact executive functioning (e.g. depression, sleep disorders, anxiety, malnutrition, etc.).

(wow I used the word impact a lot in this paragraph)

If ivermectin actually worked, pharma companies would just make a new version with a slightly different structure and patent/sell that formula instead.

What? It's an adaptive trial design, not a criminal act.

The vaccine was effective/safe enough that it would cause more harm to leave them unvaccinated. If anything it means that there's more points of safety data by doing it this way.

We also have no good scientific evidence on whether parachutes are effective. You can't knowingly run an experiment that could cause harm to the participants.

Yeah, every flu vaccine ever made.

But the vaccine is free and safe. Unless you're allergic to the vaccine, or immunocompromised, there's no good reason not to get the vaccine.

Even if you've had covid already, it's not going to do any harm.

I'm not sure of you're aware, but there's actually drug treatments for TD now, such as Valbenazine. From what I can tell, they have pretty good efficacy/safety [1].

[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5958944/

Most Australians support these measures, please stop assuming we have the same views as americans.

Yes it did: https://www.france24.com/en/europe/20201212-switzerland-intr...

I'd argue that the lack of characters per tweet is what makes Twitter so toxic, since it essentially destroys the ability to convey nuance.