ParacelsusOfEgg
Joined 4 years ago
Joined 4 years ago
The NAR has been historically pretty anticompetitive (see the recent Burnett v. National Association of Realtors finding) so my sense is this is likely anti consumer.
Blood can be separated out into its plasma, red blood cells, and platelets by an apheresis machine. The machine cycles the unused components back into the donar so only one component is donated.
Blood plasma (~55% by volume), the amber colored water and disolved proteins, can be sold. Red blood cells (~44% by volume), and platelets (~1% by volume) can NOT be sold in the US by donars.
Most blood drives that you'd experience at school or in the workplace takes whole blood (so there is no need for the apheresis machine) which is more exhausting than if just one of the components was taken.
Source: an O+ blood donar with 50+ pints donated.
I do find it hard to believe rockson doesn't know anyone who has been involved in a car accident if they live in the US.
I'd disagree slightly with your characterization of the author's findings on over-exercising; quoting from the discussion section:
"Our findings do not provide evidence for increased mortality risk with physical activity amounts as high as seven times above the current recommended target range. All cause, CVD and CHD mortality risks were lower at physical activity levels up to approximately 5–7 times the recommended level but the additional reduction in risk of mortality with engagement in activity at levels beyond the recommendations was modest and with increasing uncertainty, as reflected by the wide confidence intervals. Thus based on all of the available studies, we did not identify a higher mortality risk at any level of physical activity above the recommended level, although the lowest point estimate for all cause mortality was approximately 2000 MET min. Our analyses suggest that 10–12 hours of weekly vigorous physical activity cannot be considered harmful to longevity."
My reading is that the authors did not draw any conclusions about increased risks at higher MET levels due to the broad confidence intervals caused by the cancer risk data.
From the screenshot, it looks like the title of that conversation is "Hindi hate" which is a little bit suspect.
Everything in the video up until 20:30 is making supporting the claim that tariffs are higher now than they were in 2024 which I'd be surprised if anyone disagrees with.
After 20:30 is where I think the real meat of the video is:
"Um, now I know some people will say you can't win in a trade war. So even though Trump has gotten, you know, these good uh better levels than he had a year ago, it's basically attacks. It's going to lead to less efficiency and it's going to cause growth to fall and nobody wins a trade war. Now, if that's your argument, I tend to agree with you. But that's a different subject, right? If you want to say that nobody wins in a war and that's going to hurt everybody, fine. I'll go down that road. I think it's a relative game and if everybody falls but the United States falls the least, then on a relative basis, the United States has maintained its hegemony."