Readit NewsToday, people Google phone numbers they use regularly. I've had interactions with people who have a hard time even remembering their own phone number.
All the old television networks, Netflix, Amazon, Disney, Apple, and others are pumping out more mediocre TV than anyone wants or cares to consume. The quality is too low and the quantity is too high.
It’s telling to me that the most-watched shows on these networks are often sitcoms from the 90s and 00s, despite a mountain of newer content going unnoticed.
A shakeout would be a good thing.
There was also huge glut of forgettable content back then. Most 90s and 00s shows were low quality crap too. No one is watching those now. The handful of shows that survived and made it onto today’s streaming services are the greatest of that era.
"The manuscript presents some new data on, and provides a section of discussion of, the effect of tobacco consumption on patient susceptibility to COVID-19, and cites other studies that claim SARS-CoV-2 infection is less prevalent in smokers or tobacco users." Perhaps reading those other studies would be prejudicial.
I once spend the better part of a day online looking for actual data on the known dangers of second-hand smoke. I found the not-so-surprising answers in a hard-to-find article in Lancet. It ... contradicted the mainstream tale.
I mean that they explicitly said they retracted the study (in the journal, the authors haven't retracted anything) because they refuse to take any research from anybody who has ever accepted money from tobacco companies regardless of the rigor of the data or research. Non-academic reasons.
I understand their stance because, as you said, the tobacco companies have a long sordid history of research and it's a journal of lung health with a strong "anti-smoking" bent, but calling the study "retracted" implies that it was somehow false or disproven when it has not been.
Why would you trust the authors, though? They really should know better. To me, the omission is either the product of general incompetence (they forgot?), or intent to deceive. Both of those seem pretty disqualifying.
I understand the journal's actions but I'd hesitate to say the study is wrong or has been retracted for anything beyond politics.
The tobacco industry has a rich history of trying to manipulate public opinion in their favor, and this article and authors’ undisclosed conflict of interest fits that pattern well: a study shows cigarettes are actually good for you in some way, and might even save you from the current pandemic; and then whoops, authors were getting paid by the tobacco industry, and then whoops again, they didn’t mention it when submitting for publication.
If the study was retracted even though the CoPE guidelines don’t require a retraction, it implies to me that this case was more egregious than just some protocol mixup or forgetfulness. The most generous reading is that the retraction was made out of an abundance of caution and concern for the journal’s reputation. I suppose that’s possible, but I don’t see any further evidence in favor of exonerating the article, especially knowing the industry’s history.
I told everybody that while ripping my camels.
False dichotomy.
Also what if you are wrong? You seem very certain. Why? No meaningful discussion is allowed, so how is it that you feel you have all the information you need to make the decision -- first for yourself, and second, for every other person in your country? It seems like you are just thankful your fears about your neighbors have been tranquilized? Where did those fears come from again?
You’re simply wrong. You’re entitled to your wrong opinion, but you’re no longer entitled to force the rest of us to suffer for it.
The people who believe this nonsense still aren't a majority, but they are now a large enough constituency to affect actual public policy. They are enabled by another large group who choose to ignore the insanity because it is politically convenient for them. I find all of this beyond terrifying. I stand by my statement: Smallpox could never be eradicated in 2021.
It’s certainly worse in the US than it is in Germany. That much is clear.
I don’t know if people are generally any more stupid now. I think it’s just that our media elevates these uninformed voices and amplifies these stupid points of view, treating both sides as possibly right, when one is so obviously wrong.
Is there any info on how this impacts the environmental benefits of EVs? Or is the lack of combustion still a net gain?
https://www.sustainabilitybynumbers.com/p/electric-vehicles-...
Trying to summarize: EVs still seem to be a net gain, but non-exhaust emissions are still a significant problem. We don't know how bad that problem really is because there's not enough research yet.