msla
Joined 9 years ago
Joined 9 years ago
A lot of worthless books are rare. That was what people in the trade call "Clickbait"; in that it isn't technically a lie but it sure ain't the truth.
> The destruction of the books wasn't the point
It was to the people who shared the stories for clicks and outrage farming.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stripped_book
> A stripped book is a mass market paperback that has been stripped of its cover in order to be recycled. The covers are returned to the publisher as evidence that the books have been destroyed and to obtain a credit on the purchase price.[1] The books are meant to be destroyed by pulping but some find their way to street merchants, sometimes by illegal means, and are resold.[2]
I grew up reading books with this ditty in them:
> If you purchased this book without a cover you should be aware that this book is stolen property. It was reported as “unsold and destroyed” to the publisher and neither the author nor the publisher has received any payment for this “stripped book.”
Those books certainly weren't scanned before being pulped. Would've been illegal. Really, the big thing that destroys books is the copyright term being as long as it is.
https://www.ala.org/advocacy/intfreedom/hate
> There is no legal definition of "hate speech" under U.S. law, just as there is no legal definition for evil ideas, rudeness, unpatriotic speech, or any other kind of speech that people might condemn.
> In the United States, hate speech is protected by the First Amendment. Courts extend this protection on the grounds that the First Amendment requires the government to strictly protect robust debate on matters of public concern even when such debate devolves into distasteful, offensive, or hateful speech that causes others to feel grief, anger, or fear. (The Supreme Court's decision in Snyder v. Phelps provides an example of this legal reasoning.) Under current First Amendment jurisprudence, hate speech can only be criminalized when it directly incites imminent criminal activity or consists of specific threats of violence targeted against a person or group.
On the subject of research: The standard of care changes over time for a reason. Older studies, based on older treatment protocols, will have worse survival rates, and including them in an average will make things seem worse than they are. It's hard to do an apples-to-apples comparison with chemotherapy protocols from before current biologics like monoclonal antibodies existed.
> AIs may downplay the seriousness of things. I was chatting with various models and most pushed me in the direction of “you don’t have cancer” for a while. Just something to note.
I wonder if this is a deliberate prompting to counteract the old WebMD flaw of "Flulike symptoms? You have a week to live" because it takes actual context to understand that a lot of things have flulike symptoms, but for most people, most of the time, in the absence of other evidence, they're caused by the flu.
> You may need to push for comprehensive genetic testing. Some doctors were weird about this and didn’t order it promptly, even after telling me they would. My surgeon, who told me he’d get it done, eventually referred me out to an oncologist. This caused a multi-month delay to getting genetic results, since the first results were done on the surgery tumor, not the biopsy tumor. No one cares more about your case than you, so take control and send lots of follow-ups.
Also, genetic testing is not necessarily going to reveal anything. I had cancer, I got genetic testing, I explicitly opted for the "expanded" version which I was warned might give me results that sounded scary but were inconclusive based on current knowledge and... I got a Variant of Unknown Concern on one gene and that was it. Nobody knows what causes the kind of cancer I had (PMBCL) and the test left us none the wiser.
Do you also put Java in quotes? Rust?
> on Solaris, unlike elsewhere, the packaging system is intended only for system components (and Solaris defines this narrowly), not additional software.
Which points to this:
https://web.archive.org/web/20110411135805/http://holyhandgr...
https://www.cancer.org/cancer/types/colon-rectal-cancer/dete...
> The Affordable Care Act (ACA) requires both private insurers and Medicare to cover the costs of all colorectal cancer screening tests that are recommended by the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF). The law stipulates that there should be no out-of-pocket costs for patients, such as co-pays or deductibles, for these screening tests.