deugtniet

The writer of this hasn't even talked to any of the local population who have been subjected to these earthquakes that destroys the local populations' houses.

Historically, the Dutch government has done extremely little to compensate the Groningers' damage. The Dutch are considered a bad example with regards to how the government is handling the proceeds of fossil fuels. So subjecting anyone to another round of house-destroying earthquakes is surely going to be well compensated this time. /s

I guess I'm not very versed in website A/B testing, but wouldn't it be much better to analyze these results in a regression framework where you can correct for the covariates?

On top of this, logistic regression makes your units a lot more interpretable than just looking at differences in means. I.E. The odds of buying something are 1.1 when you are assigned in group B.

Even if there were a cure in the future, there isn't one now. That's not the medical system giving up, that's being realistic. Having to wait while unbearably suffering is not something that can be expected of someone.

I prefer a system where there is a good procedure for death with dignity than one where we are not allowed to help someone end their prolonged and unbearable suffering.

I'm very happy you're happy :-)

Unfortunately this is not the case for a very small minority of individuals who suffer without a cure. I prefer these people to go through their process with dignity, than to go for the other option.

Let's be absolutely clear, euthanasia is not widespread anywhere. It's legal in a few jurisdictions, and it's not something that is taken lightly by any party involved. It's extremely rare for a young person to be granted euthanasia in the Netherlands, and only when the individual suffers without any hope for remit.

This lady has tried to be granted euthanasia for years now, after suffering from a serious disease for all her life. Without any treatment that helped her. In all those years, she has tried to cure herself of the disease, but to no consequence. I think she deserves to get what _she_ wants with dignity.

This article is disingenuous by only referring to expert opinion from a Christian university, which is obviously against euthanasia. Experts from other universities would provide a more nuanced view on the subject. Furthermore when the article discusses an increase in numbers, they don't mention that 60% of euthanasia is performed for individuals who suffer from late stage cancer. Most others are generally very old, and will only suffer without remit for the rest of their lives.

The procedure for this woman to have been granted euthanasia is not something that is easy to get through. It is mentioned she has suffered from this disease for all of her life and there is no cure. Multiple medical doctors need to be in agreement before a request for euthanasia is granted in any case. There is even more scrutiny when it is about a young person as well as when the disease is mental in nature.

In all, I hated reading this article, because it's extremely far from the truth about how the Netherlands have implemented their euthanasia laws. I suggest reading up on it from more reputable sources than `the mirror`

Thanks for sharing! I was always wondering how climate scientists were able to identify if an event was due to climate change. Now I have a good reference!

There is a very strong reason why Airbus does not publicize mishaps of their competitors. Once airline manufacturers start slinging mud at each other it will damage the carefully built trust that they have gained over the years. Neither Airbus nor Boeing want this. Airbus has had it's fair share of mishaps as well, which Boeing has not publicized either.

This is post is not sponsored nor endorsed by Airbus or any other plane manufacturer for that reason. Note that airbus has not done so when the 737 max had 2 accidents that were due to lax regulatory oversight.

This post IS sponsored by a travel company that tries to market their service to a wary public that doesn't want to fly on a potentially badly manufactured airframe.

Scientific reports is read in many places, including in medicine.

Regarding your 'low-impact' comment I have a few thoughts. 1. Although this is a large study, they do not find any world shocking new insights that are otherwise found in other studies. Cholesterol phenotypes are very well studied. Changing a guideline is usually not done based on a study of a single population. 2. They do not account for medication usage which confounds results. 3. They do not find a causal relationship between cholesterol and mortality, only provide an association.

If anybody thinks this is a good idea, I'm looking forward to reading your opinions.