tidydata

It would seem quite obvious that mass destruction of habitat may cause neurological impairment, mass deaths, etc.

These things are not unrelated.

> "West Nile [disease] is ruled out. . . Everything has been ruled out. To date, we still do not know," says Monsma, citing tests conducted by Wildlife's clinic director, Cheryl Chooljian.

I’m no expert in this, but I’m going to guess that destroying their habitats may be to blame.

Yikes, was looking to read something a bit more technical but the writing felt tacky and amateurish. Reminds me a lot of what LinkedIn is like.

To be quite honest, most of it is sold by the media, who have mutually beneficial arrangements with the for-profit healthcare/insurance industry. If you’ve ever seen how many advertisements on American TV about prescriptions, health plans, etc, you know what I’m getting at. The debate is kept tightly constrained to make the capitalist system seem more robust and successful than it actually is. So: media propaganda, more or less.

Also want to add: my child’s birth cost $20,000 (with insurance). When I would tell other Americans about this, the response was (usually) “you know you can get on a payment plan, right?”

I’m definitely not scared. Are you okay?

I also totally understand being single, childless, and driven to a career. I’m happier now. Who is the one not listening to other’s opinions? You sure you understand?

But is _is_ an unknown future prize, and countless stories prove that. Pension funds go belly up, whole industries made obsolete, an accident/injury disrupts everything, etc.

I think your premise of “telling people how to live their life” falls more on the popular notion that investment early in career, rather than family or life experience, is more important. I believe this is wrong and it’s repeated more frequently than my counterpoint!

Having children means sharing your marshmallows. It’s also a lot easier to chase a kid in your 20s than your 30s. It’s also maturing, enjoyable, and spending time with them is the best part of the day.

Not something many people say about work! Maybe when the work is truly meaningful (I wouldn’t know).

The notion that people need to work through their 20s for this unknown future prize is silly and wasteful. Spending the prime years of your life slaving to a computer is something I think a lot of people will regret.

So, no, I won’t listen to PG. My most fulfilling work is being a dad.

Is there any meaningful change to curtail the amount of power these companies have? Legislation like this seems like show and does nothing to control the fact that a handful of social media companies can make enormous editorial decisions not just on political candidacy... but basically everything else. Seems like another one of those stories that will likely go nowhere and turned into a partisan divide, but maybe I’m just bitter.

>Remember 6 months ago when Christopher Krebs insisted that DHS had successfully protected US infrastructure?

No, maybe you should edit your post by linking to what you’re referring to. Seems like a broad claim to make.

This model gives government the power of choosing who is and is not a “trusted source” and depends on a relationship where those sources report uncritically about the information they are being given. It is also prioritizing which (for-profit) business gets favorable access.

From a practicality perspective it makes sense. From a propaganda perspective it’s chilling.

Why wouldn’t the CDC publish guidance once it is ready, which the media can than report on? The mere coordination (and normalcy thereof) is exactly why people view these policies (gatekeeping) as nefarious.