Just because transmissibility-reduction-effectiveness wasn't studied before the (emergency use authorization) release of the vaccine doesn't mean that it wasn't also (somewhat) effective at doing that, but just became known after-the-fact because of a much larger "study" (the general population).
The point of the pre-release studies was to determine how effective it was at preventing severe-disease and hospitalization, and those were the numbers evaluated for the EUA decision (at least in USA)
I don't know who this politician is, but seems to be trying hard to create scandal and controversy. And sure, he did uncover a lie by government officials, sort of (preventing yourself from getting sick to the point of shedding less virus does help others around you too), if they made those statements and marketing materials before such data existed to back it up.
Maybe pfizer did make those claims before the EU rollout? That wasn't shown or discussed in this video, even though it would have helped his argument by presenting that.

Certainly I agree that the phrase "speed of science" is content-less, because the scientific method doesn't define speed. The time-to-marketable-solution might be a better measurement, and that largely depends on how much money you throw at a problem.

Hang on, now, this is physics law.

Let's say it's a 1g nail and a 100g frog. In order to effect a 100-fold increase in relativistic mass (i.e. starting mass / sqrt( 1 - v^2/c^2) ) the velocity must be over 99% of the speed of light (it would be 99% if we didn't have to square them).

That's a hell of a lot more than 20 over, buddy. Is there a limit on that fine, or does it depend on the width of the ticket?

I can think of a good reason someone might want to be part horse.

You also make a good case study for the advantages of being part newt.

It all depends what what part, I suppose.

Taking that video at face value (as I don't have the time or expertise to evaluate it factually) that's so extraordinarily interesting tat it deserves an instant *promote.

In particular, it gives better explanations of of America's disgraceful treatment of Cuba, and the the environmentally terrible practice of fracking than I've ever seen, let alone from a single source.

Not only that, it's also demonstrated the value of a few practices I've personally seen in Russia (and read about elsewhere), such as the move from globalisation to self-sufficiency, and the value of control of boundaries/borders, regardless of the short-term and local impact.

What it doesn't go into is the American push to control the cultural narrative globally, particularly in the western hemisphere, but that's more a consequence of their supremacy in other areas, and doesn't depend on geography. i.e. while I ramble about further aspects, the video stayed expertly on topic. Bravo.

So dragons don't breathe fire but rather ... hot coals (or black dragon phlegm)? OK...

I didn't grow up on tabletop DnD, but rather on Wizardry, Eye of the Beholder, Ultima and later the BG/IWD/NWN series etc. on the PC ... this doesn't feel like any of those DnD PC games. Now now, I know a tabletop DnD game can feel vastly different depending on the DM and the players, it CAN be as silly as anything, please don't boooo me.

I mean, if I'm more charitable-minded I'd call this is more Discworld and The Bard's Tale than typical DnD.

But really, this, this feels like a lazy MCU formula movie put in a fantasy setting and call it DnD.

Fraudster and wannabe Hitler Trump pleaded the fifth about his businesses being both over and under valued depending on which helps him at the time, because he’s guilty.
Remember, Trump says “only criminals invoke the fifth. The mafia invokes the fifth. The mob takes the fifth. If you’re innocent why are you taking the fifth? Taking the fifth, I think it’s disgraceful. It’s despicable people who invoke the fifth.” In this case, I agree.
Why, then, has he fought so hard to avoid being deposed court, one wonders.

So, by his own definition, Trump just pleaded guilty to bank fraud on an unheard of scale.
Pleading the fifth in a civil case can be viewed as legally binding admission of legal liability.

The “L”s just keep coming. How will Trump run if he’s in court on dozens of civil and criminal cases or prison?

Remember how you claimed Clinton was invalidated as a candidate because she was under (a purely partisan, umpteenth, disingenuous) investigation? Now you say “nothing burger” that Trump is under dozens of actual indictments, many criminal, and is considering running to attempt to shield himself from legal consequences of serious crimes?! Are you truly so blind you don’t see your constant blatant hypocrisy? Probably.

And Guy Reffitt, first Jan 6 defendant to go to trial, first found guilty, now with the longest sentence at 7 years for that “totally peaceful tour of the capitol” Trump called for on Jan 6…the nothing burger….or the violent brutal murderous and thuggish attack on America by BLM/Antifa, depending on what nonsensical position you’ve taken today.
The “L”s just keep coming.

It was a mock American SAT exam (although I'm a Canadian, and I took the test in a Canadian boarding school right at a border town on Quebec/Maine named Stanstead College). My beef wasn't really with the teacher originally, I just thought the SAT was weird to have such a math question, so I justed wanted to point out there are 2 right answers, and 1 interesting philosophical argument to be had depending of how you look at d)... about how the question/answers were flawed. But with her answer, I couldn't but sneer and thought she was just clueless (instead of both of us had a laugh at the Q... while sipping tea? Stanstead College had a very British tradition).

As she was not the dunce who drafted that stupid question, I was not going to fight her for an inconsequential demerit (on my part or SAT?), nor find it worthwhile to pursuit the higher-ups for a correction.

The wings can be removed and they can use a flat bed tow truck. Depending on what was wrong with the plane, if it can be fixed and it's safe to do so, they can close the road and it can be flown out.

This is one of those cons that's so bad it actually helps it's own spread.

His entire premise depends on folks buying in that 'Science" was duped into a bad 'definition' for the origins of oil at some committee meeting. You have to accept that for the next 100 years, the entire scientific community was powerlessly bound by this committee decision.

The reason that's so effective is the same as the scam emails rife with typos and bad grammar. He immediately is limiting his audience after that point to folks who didn't nope out already at that point. Targeted marketing at any audience vulnerable to whatever snake oil pitch he's ultimately selling.

I don't believe this was ever about taking Ukraine with the Russian military. I believe this is about destroying Ukraine and squeezing Europe's energy-dependent balls until the EU cracks under the economic pressure caused by the sanctions. This is already happening with Germany whimpering to Daddy Vladdy for all that precious, precious oil and gas. "Oh, we gave Zelensky a billion euros!"; yeah, and you gave Putin 25x that in oil/gas purchases.

The mealy-mouthing and dissembling has already begun, most shamefully from the New York Times, who is calling for Ukraine to make "hard choices". "This isn't capitulation" -- fuck you NYT, yes it is.

I had honest hopes that the western powers would show some spine and resolve, but as soon at their economies started to feel a little pain, the number of fucks given for Ukrainian lives went to zero. Russian is going to rape and murder its way from Odessa to the Belarus border until the western powers figure out some way to make it all Zelensky's fault or force him to cede massive amounts of Ukrainian territory before any real economic pain felt.

The worst part is that Finland and Sweden are going to be granted NATO membership, but Ukraine still is denied. Why are these two the hills NATO is willing to die on and Ukraine not? If NATO isn't willing to risk nuclear war over Ukraine, what happens when the tip of a single Russian boot touches Finnish soil? What happens when Finland then calls for Article 5 and the rest of NATO suddenly realizes shit just got real? What happens when it's time to shit or get off the pot; put up or shut up? Either NATO charges into the teeth of a potential nuclear war, or NATO is shown to be a paper tiger. If someone sees a middle ground, I'm interested in hearing it.

(Incidentally, NATO's Article 5 is pretty porous. A-5 doesn't say every NATO nation commits whatever forces are deemed necessary by the whole to defend against an aggressor. Instead, it says that in the event of A-5 coming into play, each member will take "such action as [the member state] deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area."

Notice the whole 'each member' and 'deems necessary'? Yeah, to quote a popular movie 'I don't think this mutual defense pact means what you think it does'.)

I'm suffering from serious confirmation bias on this because it agrees with a lot of what I heard around the 2014 revolution and since.

I was in Russia when they invaded Georgia in 2008. Specifically, I was staying with family in Ossetia, which is a mountain state that was split between Russia (North Ossetia) and Georgia (South Ossetia). Russia invaded because Georgia was attacking a Georgian town in South Ossetia. On the day of the invasion I was working in the mountains collecting water samples, and got a very close view of what was happening, got local confirmation of what was being reported, got to talk to refugees, etc.

Without going into it too much, when I got back to Ireland and saw what was being said and how it was being framed it was absolutely laughable and so obviously wrong. Some were worse than others - Sky News in the UK and Fox News being the worst offenders - but no major news media that I saw was giving the side of the story that I saw.

Also, when the UN report on what happened came out several years later it completely matched with my take on what happened.

The point of all this is that when the invasion happened earlier this year I knew there was no way I'd have the time or expertise to find out what's going on, even though I have friends and family in Ireland, Russia, and Ukraine. All sides are pushing their narrative hard. All sides are lying to us and manipulating us to the best of their ability. Depending on where you live you'll hear one side louder than the other, and the people around you will tend towards that narrative.

Personally I believe both sides have committed atrocities. I don't know who's been worse. I've seen both sides, including journalists, manipulating footage to support their narrative.

My only take on this is that invading a sovereign country is absolutely wrong except in extreme circumstances where every practical diplomatic means has been exhausted.

To come back to this video, my instinct was to promote it because it does seem to be a well informed take on the context of what's happening, but I've been hesitant because of my confirmation bias and because it muddies the message of "war is very very very bad".

Feck it, though. *promote

Depends, what's the penalty for coming before completion?