Perspective
https://youtu.be/d_jzykOXx9o

Years of non stop coverage, hearings, investigations, accusations, and frothing rage over 4 dead Americans in high risk jobs at the hands of Muslims, now the same moronic fear mongers think the current officially confirmed 80000 (likely really at least twice that, 640000 if counted the same way as flu deaths Trumpsters quote) Covid citizen deaths and tens of trillions in losses don't warrant contemporary coverage of real time infection rates and skyrocketing death rate stats are now media fear mongering, not life or death vital information they otherwise wouldn't have because the current administration, Chinalike, minimized, hid, downplayed, and ignored the clear and present danger, and continues to do so every time Corona Don opens his feculent maw on TV.

Perspective

Do you know where i might find articles/numbers (stats) that make a direct link between the lack of respirators in those areas and mortality.

@moonsammy No, it's not the first time a non pitcher was on the mound when there team won. It's the first time a non pitcher was credited with a pitching "Save". His team had a two run lead when he entered the game as a pitcher. The previous pitcher was awarded the "Win".
http://m.mlb.com/glossary/standard-stats/save

There are plenty of position players who have recorded a win as a pitcher. You can find them among this list. https://www.baseball-reference.com/friv/fieldPitch.shtml

(edit) As a side note, first time since 1969 when the save stat was made official.

Allow me to demonstrate your bias in this situation.

Q: if instead of bacon, what if they had 800 studies showing that, say, carrots cause cancer. Would you be arguing about the stats, or would you stop eating carrots?

I'm pretty sure you'd stop eating carrots. But because you enjoy bacon so much, it's having a impact on your reasoning. That is your bias.


I can prove this further by asking you what it would take to make you give up bacon. And I'm quite sure you would say nothing. Perhaps short of some instant effect, I know you would never stop eating it, no matter strong the evidence. In fact many people don't. They rather go blind and hav their legs amputated from preventable diabetes than give up their instant comfort foods. They are so biased they lose their own limbs, and still refuse to accept the reality.

You also you like to claim that me being vegan makes me biased. But the truth is that the Science made me vegan. And not the other way around. The reduction of animal cruelty is just a bonus.

It's not time you lack, I got an A in statistics which I took after advanced placement B/C calculus, thank you.
Please stop hyper exaggerating the danger of all animal products and the benefits of veganism.

No, we're acting like +1% lifetime risk of one type of cancer, from 5%-6%, is a totally acceptable level of risk to trade for a lifetime of pleasure when taken knowingly, and is a far cry from +18% every time you eat bacon. It's probably far less than the additional risk of drinking municipal water, or breathing anywhere East of the West coast, certainly exponentially less than breathing air in any major metropolitan area, or living within 25 miles of a military base or airport.

I'm also acting like people who lie about or misrepresent the stats only prove their position is untenable and that they're untrustworthy. If 1% total increased lifetime risk is enough to make your point, why erroneously claim +18% per serving? It makes it so easy to dismiss and overlook any real point you might have had.

Nothing is unanimous, and that goes double for nutritional advice. Somewhere there's a doctor that insists you can't possibly get enough nitrates, most would say if you're healthy go ahead and have some bacon...in moderation. My doctor and numerous documentaries say the stress of worrying incessantly about every little risk factor is a much bigger risk factor than almost any other for innumerable disorders and diseases. I'll take his advice, thanks.

Yes, that number is in both posts, but you wrongly said risk rose not 1% but 18% per every 50g eaten (either would be wrong).....he correctly said it rose approximately 1% from 5%-6% overall lifetime risk for 50g per day eaters, which is an increase by 18%.
To remind you, your exact words were....

"Also your stats are way off it's not 1% it's 18% for every 50g ..."

Also your stats are way off it's not 1% it's 18% for every 50g according to the WHO after reviewing 800 studies.

https://www.iarc.fr/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/pr240_E.pdf


Lovely of you to claim propaganda, but of course, the bias is all yours here - or are you going to tell me you don't enjoy bacon?

On a population scale that is huge.

If 1% of bacon lovers in the US get cancer, that's millions of people suffering and dying unnecessarily.

And indeed the stats back this up, 140,000 people are diagnosed every year, 50,000 people die from just colon cancer, year after year after year.

Where's the supposed propaganda?

Out of the 400,000 apprehensions last year along the southern boarder how many would have tried if there were a wall?

How many slipped passed and not accounted for?

from U.S. Customs and Border Protection link

https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration/fy-2018

400,000 average apprehensions /year for last 6 years

With catch and release how much $ does this cost America?
A Wall would greatly discourage one from attempting.
Also a wall would be cheaper.

Yeah, the bad thing about the entire situation is it seems the facts vary wildly depending on who you go with. I guess just like any statistic analysis with such a charged subject, people probably alter the methodology of getting the information to support their viewpoint. I found super low stats and higher ones, so I tried to go with the ones that seemed to have the least reason to alter the stats. Maybe they are wrong, I can't say.

Same for Dr. Ford, I can only go off my personal take on it. She seemed credible until I read the letter from her Ex, but maybe he lied or was a plant by the Republicans. I certainly can't go by her polygraph since I agree with everyone so far that they are pretty much junk science as you said. I'm torn, but like I mentioned, I am still leaning towards her account being false. I might be totally wrong, it wouldn't be the first time.

The worst thing is that no one here really won except Kavanaugh. The Republicans are going to take a hit in years of coming elections, the Democrats are stuck with a conservative majority court, Dr. Ford is going to be praised or vilified depending on individual opinion, and we as a nation look like we are ready to basically go to war with one another over our political split. We look dumber than ever to the rest of the world and I don't see a quick resolution in sight.

It isn't as rare as you think. There are numerous accounts of false accusations that don't make it as far as court or they do and the accused choose to take a plea versus chancing half their life.

Brent E. Turvey, a criminologist, wrote a 2017 book that dispels this notion. His research, and that of two co-authors, cited statistical studies and police crime reports. One academic study showed that as many as 40 percent of sexual assault charges are false. Mr. Turvey wrote that the FBI in the 1990s pegged the falsity rate at 8 percent for rape or attempted rape complaints.

“There is no shortage of politicians, victims’ advocates and news articles claiming that the nationwide false report for rape and sexual assault is almost nonexistent, presenting a figure of around 2 percent,” writes Mr. Turvey, who directs the Forensic Criminology Institute. “This figure is not only inaccurate, but also it has no basis in reality. Reporting it publicly as a valid frequency rate with any empirical basis is either scientifically negligent or fraudulent.”

A recent study supports this assessment. The Pentagon issues an annual report on sexual assaults in the military. Nearly one-quarter of all cases last year were thrown out for lack of evidence, according to a report released in May.

As far as the rape every 98 seconds, I am unsure where you found that number. There were 95,730 rapes under the revised FBI definitions (which include more categories that previously were not considered rape, like child molestion, under the legacy definitions) in the last year I could find which was 2016. These are the combined rapes of men, women, and children for that year. That means the actual rape of a 'person' is occurring somewhere around every 5-6 minutes. Now if you are going by a different statistic, like the CDC ones that include such a wide definition of what constitutes 'rape' that it isn't funny, you might get the result you quoted. I wouldn't go by those stats, even TIME magazine had to call out the CDC for overstating the numbers.

As far as Trump goes, he is a complete idiot dickhead. He shouldn't have insulted anyone, least of all Dr. Ford. I will point out one thing though, and this is subjective in that your viewpoint will differ from mine, Dr. Ford is an alleged rape survivor. She has made the claim and took a polygraph test, but other than that she can only claim that in her recollection she was at a party where Brett Kavanaugh was also at supposedly. She also claimed to be heavily intoxicated. If you want to believe her Ex, she has lied in her testimony. (https://heavy.com/news/2018/10/christine-ford-boyfriend-ex-letter-blasey/) Heavy leans left, so this isn't a bobknight cherry picking of information.

Now, why would she come forth and deal with all the negatives of making the claim? I guess that is the kicker, normally you would expect a person to really be telling the truth if they are going to be put through hell. I would put forward though that this was one of the most hotly contested confirmations for SCOTUS ever. Even more so than for Bork, and I remember that one clearly. In my opinion, far more than for Thomas. If you were adamantly opposed to a person sitting on the Supreme Court, had went to school with that person, and were willing to fall on your sword for your beliefs, you might do it.

In any case, that is just supposition on my part.

The problem with all these Trumptards that are protesting the NFL because a few players aren't standing for the anthem, and just want them to do their job, though they DO do their job, which is play football. Meanwhile, they were singing the praises of Kim Davis when she refused to do her job when some people came in because some people sinned differently than her.

And as to how can they can see the interview and question the Fox and Trump narrative... They will NEVER question the Fox and Trump narrative. He could admit today he colluded because he owes tons of money to the Russian mob because of his money laundering, they wouldn't care, they'd just stat spitting out the Fox and Trump narrative that at least it saved us from the Demoncrats... just look at the shirts at Trump rallies about "I'd rather be Russian than Democrat", though not too long ago, even in the Reagan days, it was "better dead then red"... now I guess being aligned with the Soviets isn't bad, so long as you aren't Democrat... of course just look at Arkansas (I think it was), where even if turned out to be true that their one guy was a child molester, they'd still vote for him over a Democrat. That is how far these people are in the Fox and Trump mindset. Like Trump said, he could shoot somebody on the street and not loose a single vote. And near 100% of those people will be out to vote this November. If moderates and liberals want any chance of change, they'll need to turn out in droves, because he's already got 30+% of the voting population locked in and voting GOP this November, because they know they got more Supreme Court seats coming, and they are honestly afraid their faith is at stake if they don't vote GOP.

I look at it this way....in the time they would likely serve in prison for aggravated rape and kidnapping, (that time likely made much longer due to the racial components), the likelihood they would both be raped themselves nears 100% (that likelihood also higher due to the racial components, racial revenge rape), assuming they survive. Add to that the 15+- years in prison and lifelong stigma of being a class 1 sex offender. Considering all that, the rape accusation carries far worse consequences than a one evening kidnapping and rape would, although both are excessively egregious. Also, keep in mind that every false accusation effects the likelihood of successfully prosecuting real rapists. I have no stats about that, but I would guess easily 5 rapists go free for every proven false accusation....to pull a number right from my ass. The consequences of the false accusations can easily be the more serious of the two, imo, when all is considered.

I see your point and agree, and I think there should be stringent requirements to prove an accusation was false before pursuing prosecution, but in cases where there's no question like this one, convict and send a strong message with a long....long sentence, not one year (in most places meaning no prison, local jail, and probably under 1/4 of that time actually served since it's considered non violent).
And yes, major compensation is in order. This accusation will follow and haunt them for life, even though it was retracted.

I agree, this is an outlier, but it's a devastating, life altering crime and needs to be treated as such when it's proven. Because rape is much more prevalent than false rape charges is not an excuse to ignore this or in any way hinder aggressively prosecuting it, in my mind it's a reason to go after it harder.

Edit:also, I'm completely irrational in my hatred of liars.

Well, do they "often" do better... meaning "whatever a surprising amount to Melinda Gates is" do better... or "often do better" meaning as a group they perform better and graduate more than un-aided white kids. Since we're talking stats, I'd sure like to clear up the ambiguous language!
90% seems great though.

<knowingly geeky response to comedy bit>
It's actually a really interesting game design question.

There are basically two approaches here: enemies are either fixed level or scale with the player.

Fixed level enemies mean it's possible to remove all challenge from a particular encounter by being waaaay OP for it. Scaling the enemy stats fix that issue, but you then miss out on the fun of going back through an area and roflstomping previously challenging foes.

Mark Brown of Writing on Games did a great video on this recently in relation to the design of Dark Souls


</knowingly geeky response to comedy bit>