The museum has not, in fact, made any indication that it would wish to cancel (to decide not to conduct or perform) its Charles Dickens exhibition. The sense of 'cancel' being used here is the dumb one.
Skeptics said SpaceX would fail, but it succeeded. Therefore, skepticism in general is wrong and SpaceX will have an annual revenue of $11 quadrillion by 2030.
The next administration needs to mandate the big American auto companies produce more EVs in more models in order to save them from the irrelevance they seemingly desire and arguably deserve.
They think their dog food tastes great now, not because they improved it any, but because they've forgotten the taste of human food. Karmically hilarious.
An interesting article. I wonder if there's a valid point in here buried somewhere underneath the endless obnoxious comparisons of his opponents to cultists.
The paragraph about the stove making dozens of breakfasts as the house collapses at the climax of the story is what always stuck with me most. It would take a better writer than me to say why it works so well, I just know it does.
Bayer dithering in particular is part of the signature look of Flipnote Studio animations, which you may recognize from animators like kekeflipnote (e.g. https://youtu.be/Ut-fJCc0zS4)
Steam doesn't need to lock down the Steam Machine to subsidize it with store purchases. The casual user could theoretically install another OS, but that doesn't matter because they won't (because they're casual users), and the dedicated user buys most of their games on Steam anyways because it's the dominant distribution platform.
I started dieting recently and I've come to understand the people who say that American portions are huge. An automat lets you sample a bunch of different stuff instead of the typical fast-food format of a main, french fries, and a drink each in a too-large portion. I'd like something like that.
I can't help but notice similarities with certain conservative attacks on puberty blockers and hormone therapy for trans people.
> A general subjective notion that the evidence "isn't good enough" with no reference to the level of evidence that is typically used to approve other treatments with similar risks and benefits
> The focus on randomized controlled trials as the only acceptable form of evidence, despite (or because of) their expense and length
> Common and easy-to-collect indirect markers of effectiveness (presence of antibodies, lower reported suicidality) are against them, so they insist on using only rare, hard-to-collect direct markers (prevented illnesses, reduction in completed suicide attempts) despite lacking any reason to believe the results will be different
> The insistence on unnecessary, lengthy trials or tests for treatments that are time-sensitive, to the point of overrunning the time when they ought to be administered (RCTs for flu vaccines that would delay them past flu season, vs insisting on a large and arbitrary minimum number of assessments before allowing puberty blockers such that puberty starts before the patient is approved). For the anti-treatment side in both cases, a long enough delay is effectively a victory that doesn't require them to prove any of their points.
So, what can we draw from these tactics? They want to make their opponents waste time and resources on long, difficult trials (the longer the better,) because every day it goes on is a day that treatment is delayed or a "temporary restriction" can continue. Plus, if they need more time, they can always push the arbitrary standard of evidence they demand arbitrarily higher. They can always demand more trials, or more specific and difficult-to-collect data.
But on some level, they know they can't say "THIS is the study that will prove vaccines/HRT are unsafe" because they understand that the results will probably not go in their favor (or, that they'd get caught if they faked it).
It seems like they understand that the evidence is against them, but that stalemate is in their favor.
I can imagine it. If I were the kind of person whose needs and desires could all be satisfied by mass-produced products sold by the top 5 or so largest retail corporations, and who did things like fill out consumer surveys for a chance to win gift cards, and who enabled all tracking in every app everywhere for convenience's sake, and who didn't care much about privacy because I had nothing to hide, I imagine that ad targeting might become effective enough that I would regularly encounter ads for products that looked interesting and which I might want to buy.
You'll need to explain this a little bit more, because the TC article seems to indicate the issue is that he is accused of targeted harassment. I doubt you could design a poll to make people vote 85% in favor of targeted harassment.