Only a fool believes he didn't really believe it would work and that he just had a genius idea nobody thought of, just like his other idea, massive doses of uv. Nobody knew that wouldn't work, nobody. *facepalm
He's now claiming it was sarcasm since someone apparently told him how stupid he is, but that's obvious bullshit, he meant every word. No wink, no smirk, no "just kidding", he was dead serious.
Edit: now he's claiming it was a genius practical joke on the press not revealed for 18+ hours, putting his worshipers lives at risk to trigger the fake media....uh....yeah, that's much better.
Technically he didn't actually say people should inject it, he said doctors, actual real medical doctors this time, should test direct injection....but when he says that his moronic cultists just do it because he knows more than doctors....they didn't get their hydroxychloroquine through a doctor for the most part, they went black market because reputable doctors wouldn't prescribe it. They took it because Trump said it was perfect, a miracle cure with no downside. Turns out it may double the likelihood of death along with multiple life altering side effects.
Wait and see, people will do it. Probably drinking bleach or rubbing alcohol, but some morons will inject it. Trumpsters are not rational. Just look at homeless cocaine dad here, or you thinking he's convincing in any way. Remember, some Trumpster idiots took fish tank chloroquine because he said "chloroquine good". You think more morons won't inject rubbing alcohol because Trump said "injecting disinfectants good"?!

The president absolutely suggested it might be a way to fight the virus. That's exactly what he did. This whole video was a lame frantic attempt to deny it, then he played the audio that proves he did.

...Maybe? It would absolutely annihilate at something like chess, or Go. I have a hard time imaging a good use case for having it actually run a video game, but I'm guessing few people working on early traditional computers could've envisioned any of the delightful diversions we now take as a given. Probably when I'm 80 kids will be playing quantum Minecraft in a layered omniverse of worlds, where removing a block in one world has consequences in nearby dimensions, with chaos theory realistically modeled and incorporated.

Some complex tasks a QC would absolutely rock at however. Feed it a long list of employees, hours of availability, and coverage requirements, and it should spit out a 100% optimum schedule immediately. Air traffic controllers (particularly at large hub airports) would likely find it helpful in coordinating flight plans. Logistics for manufacturing, shipping, etc. The downside is that encryption will likely be utterly fucked for a while, as a quantum computer with a sufficient number of qubits could try all possible options at once. So it'll be interesting, but we're still 10+ years from any sort of commercial products, and they'll be like the computers of the 60s: huge and expensive, big iron for custom purposes. Or at least that's my semi-informed guess, I ain't no technoprophet.

Someone who really wants to get involved in bleeding-edge tech would do well to dive into this field. Writing the algorithms needed to run a task on a QC requires a completely different mindset than programming a traditional computer. I don't think people with years of experience with current programming methodologies would adapt well. At best they'd be nearly starting from scratch, at worst they'd have to work to un-learn what they already know.

They're not wrong.

All jobs have their downsides (and many jobs have zero upsides), so if you happen to work at a company whose policies you dislike but you are otherwise very happy, enjoy it!

What's tearing this country apart isn't an impending impeachment, it's the crowdsourcing of sensationalism coupled with rampant confirmation bias. We're all intently focused on whatever supports our currently held beliefs and hits us in the feelers with a nice dose of rage/fear. In a country of 300+ million and a world where EVERYTHING is recorded, there are plenty of three sigma outliers and circus barkers for us to entertain ourselves with. The downside is that, like walking to your car after a horror movie, we are influenced by the entertainment, made worse for those of us who buy the line that this is the TRUTH of the world.

Talk to your neighbor. Question a persons method, but never question their motivation.

Wow. Little to no evidence of smoked marijuana having any connection to lung or other cancers.

I must admit I'm surprised. To me it seems like burning something and inhaling the smoke is "obviously" a bad idea with regards to health.

Since the link between tobacco cigarettes and cancer is well established and agreed on by doctors, it makes one wonder what the difference is. Is it entirely the additives that cigarette manufacturers put into cigarettes? If so, why the hell wouldn't there be massive pressure to mass produce additive-free cigarettes at least as an option for smokers?

Also, I guess one (potential) downside of legalization is that the same sort of corporations that knowingly put cancer-causing shit into cigarettes might expand into marijuana territory, potentially trying to put crap into your pot that dispensaries and dealers never have.

Still, overall this is clearly good news for pot fans out there, and will put further pressure on the double standard between legal-but-far-more-dangerous alcohol and tobacco as compared to illegal-but-relatively-innocuous pot. Congratulations! Light one up in celebration (as if you needed a reason).

I think a 10% reduction is pessimistic, 90% like newtboy mentioned is likely optimistic.

One person being killed would have been tragic. A quick search says most recent count is 58 dead, 515 injured. Tragic has been surpassed by some orders of magnitude, and I while see what you're saying, I think it would have been meaningfully "less tragic" if he had only had access to traditional semi-automatic.

He had a bunch of weapons and a bunch of ammo. Reload time was partially mitigated by the number of guns. But finger fatigue like newtboy mentioned would have made it hard to keep firing over a prolonged time (~10 minutes of active shooting time?), and the increased time between shots plus potential for fatigue would have let people make a break for cover or to get out of line of sight.

It may well have still been the deadliest mass shooting even if he only had semi-auto. Banning bump stocks (and other full-auto conversions) won't prevent the next one, but any mitigation at all is better than nothing. And I think it would have been rather more significant than that.


Is access to full-auto or generally equivalent to full-auto the main problem? No. I fully understand your reluctance here, because I agree that GOP legislators and the NRA are likely to hold up opposition to bump stocks as a more significant badge than it deserves to be. "SEE?! I did something about it! Pat me on the back!"

...But, on the other hand, it really is a step in the right direction. And there are no real downsides, aside from that concern about giving those parties a sort of political card to play. The public will just have to make it clear that this, while good, isn't enough by itself.

Considered illegal aliens by who?
Legally, no, they're citizens (these are the "anchor babies" you've probably heard of), but practically, they usually go with their parents when they're deported.
Another downside of familial deportation....those child citizens may come back to America as adults...uneducated, poor, now mostly unAmerican adults. It seems smart to me to keep them here, and by necessity their guardians, and educate them so they don't drag us down later....but that's just, like, my opinion, man.

Ugh, I'm starting to think that the downsides of "patriotism" outweigh whatever benefits it might have.

I had never heard it claimed that cigars pose less/different cancer risks than cigarettes.

Google search provides mixed (as you might expect) results.

Cancer.gov, the Mayo Clinic, and WebMD all seem to suggest that cigar smokers in general tend to have lower rates of lung cancer than cigarette smokers (because they generally don't inhale, which I didn't know), but higher than non-smokers. And they have comparable or possibly higher rates of other cancers (oral, esophageal ... pancreatic) as compared to cigarette smokers.

Several results suggest that there is less data about cigars, results aren't statistically significant, etc. etc. and that they believe that cigars are much safer than cigarettes, if not entirely safe. But frankly, the pages I see (in a cursory search that I don't really have a personal stake in) promoting that view don't seem as ... trustworthy to me as the Mayo Clinic, or Healthcare Triage videos like this one (that list references right in the video).


No holier-than-thou attitude intended. ...Although I can say that I'm personally very glad I never acquired a taste for tobacco products of any kind. And a very low interest in alcohol consumption -- I go months on up to a year+ between drinks of booze without ever missing it. I sometimes avoid social situations because of smoke, which I suppose is a downside. But on the other hand, I'm enough of an introvert that avoiding social situations is probably something I'd be doing anyway... So at the very least I have more money to waste on other things since I'm not a smoker or much of a drinker.

Flux core would remove any slight oxidation between deposits on a continuous weld, or a media blast nozzle in front of the weld zone.
I agree with you if they intend to use it for load bearing structures, but it wouldn't be difficult. Just a loose seal around the work area and positive gas flow keeping oxygen out, problem solved.
The downside I see is cost. It's expensive to 'make metal' with a mig....or any welder. Electrodes/wire aren't cheap, and then there's the electricity. Bending or milling sheets, castings, or blocks is almost always going to be cheaper. This will be useful for designs that require complex interior shapes impossible to do conventionally, but not much else, imo.

There has to be a downside to weld-additive construction. They'd have to do this in a vacuum or inert gas filled chamber to avoid oxidisation between layers.

I know you can't weld aluminium like this. Aluminium Oxide has a much higher melting point than aluminium, which is the main point of failure with aluminium welding.

Can't watch the vid because it's blocked for me, so I apologise if anything I mention is covered by the vid.

There are very few cases where opiates are a good idea for chronic pain (as yours is). The research (which the new CDC guidelines on pain management incorporate) shows there is very little evidence opiates are beneficial for managing chronic pain. The only situations where it should be considered for chronic use are basically end of life (including cancer and palliative). The downsides are just huge, and outweigh the benefits for just about every other situation.

The reasons? Apart from the obvious stuff like tolerance, addiction, death and the rest of the massive list of side effects, there is also a lesser known problem called hyperalgesia. Opioid induced hyperalgesia is where the use of opioids actually prime the body to become more sensitive to pain, even after the opioid has left the body. So in essence, people unaware of this problem think they are reliant on opioids, but in reality taking the opioids may make them more likely to need more analgesia. It's pretty messed up actually, and there should be more education about it, particularly to the doctors doing the prescribing.

I didn't watch this, since I find The Young Turks unbearable to listen to.

Did they include the information that the sweater was a joke? I can't find the clip now, but she made one talking about how the sweater was a joke between co-workers, that they do stuff all the time to rib each other.

When I first saw the clip, I had a similar reaction -- a cocktail dress for a morning show? Like wearing a formal gown to a sock hop. Weird.

But no reason to lose one's shit and send emails. Jeesh.

This isn't what I saw a couple of days ago, but it shows the support and disgust of her co-workers.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pcjJ5SORGR4

This, my friends, is the downside to the internet. Instantaneous outrage has an outlet. Tempest in a teacup. Hell. Tempest in a teaspoon.

@transmorpher

It's a little difficult to 'debate' your comment, because the points that you address to me are numbered but don't reference to specific parts of my post. That's probably my fault as i was releasing frustration haphazardly and sarcastically, and that sarcasm wasn't aimed at you. All i can do is try and sum up whether i think we agree or disagree overall.

Essentially everything is a question of 'taste', even for you. There's no escaping our nature, most of us don't drink our own piss, many of us won't swallow our own blood, almost all of us have a flavour that we can't abide because we were fed it as a child. So yes, our decisions are defined by taste. But taste is decided by the food that is available to people, within reasonable distance of their house, at a price they find affordable according to the society around them, from a range of food that is decided by society around them. Your average person does not have the luxury to walk around a high street supermarket selecting the most humane and delicious foods. People get what they can afford, what they understand, what they can prepare and what is available. Our ancestors ate chicken because of necessity of their own kind, their children are exposed to chicken through no fault of their own, fast forward a few generations, and thus chicken becomes an affordable, accessible staple. Can we reach a compromise here? It may not be necessary for chickens to die to feed the human race, but it may be necessary for some people to eat chicken today because of their particular life.

I don't like the use of the phrase 'if i can do it, i know anyone can'. I think it's a mistake to deal in certainties, especially pertaining to lifestyles that you can't possibly know about without having lived them. Are you one of the many homeless people accepting chicken soup from a stranger because it's nourishing, cheap and easy for a stranger to buy, and keeps you warm on the streets? Are you a single mother with coeliac disease, a grumpy teenager and picky toddler who has 20 minutes to get to the supermarket and get something cooking? Or one of the millions using foodbanks in the UK (to our shame) now? I don't think you're willfully turning a blind eye to those people, i'm not tugging heart strings to do you a disservice. Maybe you're just fortunate you not only have the choice, but you have such choice that you can't imagine a life without it. I won't budge an inch on this one, you can't know what people have to do, and we have to accept life is not ideal.

And within that idealism and choice problem we can include illnesses that once again in IDEAL situations could survive without dead animals, nevertheless find it necessary to eat what they can identify and feel safe with.

Yes, those damn gluten hipsters drive me round the bend but only because they make people think that a LITTLE gluten is ok, it makes people take the problem less seriously (see Tumblr feminism... JOKE).

I agree that we must look at what action we can take now - and that is why i keep reminding you that we are not in an ideal world. If the veganism argument is to succeed then you must suggest a reasonable pathway to go from how we are now to whatever situation you would prefer. My "ideal farm" description was just me demonstrating the problem - that you need to show us your blueprint for how we start again without killing animals and feeding everyone we have.

And on that subject, your suggestions need to be backed by real research, otherwise you don't have any real plan. "It's fair to say there is very little risk" is a nice bit of illustrative language but it is not backed by any fact or figure and so i'm compelled to do my Penn and Teller impression and call bullshit. As of right now, the life expectancy of humans is better than it has ever been. It is up to you to prove that changing the diet of 7 billion people will result in neutrality or improvement of health and longevity. That proof must come in the form of large statistical analyses and thorough science. I don't want to sound like i'm being a dick, but any time you state something like that as a fact or with certainty, it needs to be backed up by something. I'm not nit picking and asking for common knowledge to have a citation, but things like this do:

-- 70% of farmland claim
-- 'fair to say very little risk' claim
-- meat gives you cancer claim - i accept it may have a carcinogenic effect but i'll remind you so does breathing, joss-sticks, broccoli, apples and water
-- 'the impact to the planet would be immense' claim - in what way, and what would be the downsides in terms of economy, productivity, health, animal welfare (where are all the animals going to be sent to retire as of day 1?)
-- etc. etc.

Oh, and a cow might get its protein from plants, but it walks around a field all day eating grass, chewing the cud and having sloppy shits with 4 stomachs and enzymes that i don't have................. I'm a bit puzzled by this one... I probably can't survive on what an alligator or a goldfish eats, but i can survive on parts of an alligator or fish. I can't eat enough krill in a day to keep me going, but i can let a whale do it for me...?

You obviously missed the spiel at the end where he explicitly said that the trickery involved to give the effect was not a downside, it was an example of extreme creativeness. There has been a constant struggle to do more with less in terms of improving games and pushing boundaries.

At no point did he say he felt ripped off... = \