Lol when I read a paper that only cites its own work it’s an immediate eye-roll from me. Usually the realm of people who can’t keep their own biases out of their work.
Maybe it’s different for some hyper-specific subfield where no one else is doing anything relevant but I think that’s pretty rare. I don’t know much about physics though. The papers I read are all biology.
My absolute favorite is when there’s two competing camps of researchers who steadfastly refuse to cite the other’s work on a topic. It’s very silly. Citing doesn’t mean you have to agree with all of their conclusions. Not doing so is obstinately refusing to acknowledge relevant data.
the united states is addicted to litigation. something that goes wrong is always someone elses responsibility and they will pay.
if a kid breaks their arm at school way too many humans decide 'that school was negligent, no matter what the circumstances' and they sue instead of collectively realizing kids do stupid things, and get hurt sometimes. this leaves school districts banning things like 'tag'. banning being children
its the same nonsense with doctors. theyve been sued into seclusion of anything they arent explicitly required to do.
the insurance industry has a hand in managing doctors time also... theyre basically given zero time to work with patients or they cant make enough money to stay in business.
health insurance companies only profit when human beings suffer
Nah, it’s about cramming as many patients as possible into each day. If it was about litigation, being more personable and attentive would decrease the risk.
If Scientists don't publish they do not get grants. Grants it turns out pay their rent, and things like food, and transportation, and kids summer camp. Failure also has a detrimental effect in the attaining of grant monies. There's a direct line here. For those that choose to go down this road, they do it for as long as they can get away with it, then try to plea bargain.
Its not just the volume of publishing, but the conclusion of the paper if you publish a paper and the result is boring (the X had negligible impact on Y but its inconclusive) you might still put your grant at risk.
Because the bigots seemed to have found ways to get in positions of influence to spread their toxic ideologies and get laws passed that targets their 'enemies'. Even when the Supreme Court ruled in 2015 that same-sex marriage is legal, I knew in the back of my mind that things are far from over. Because after that? Like one month later, Kim Davis denied legalizing a same-sex marriage.
And things seemed to have worsened thanks to the existence of people like DeSantis, Trump and any GOP still somehow breathing that wants to antagonize everyone over sexual orientation. Because in their psychotic structure, they want America to be purely Christian, purely White and probably Blonde, Blue-eyed and fair skinned.
Even in 2004, George W Bush back then on February was quoted to have said: "Our Nation must defend the sanctity of marriage". What he means is, to protect the sanctity of STRAIGHT marriage because he seems to have it in his head that marriage is the property of the church and all that shit.
Doesn't that sound exactly like the kind of people a certain country named Germany aspired to be like back in WWII? Ironic.
Yea but wasn’t that moron Kim Davis denied a same sex mariage on religious belief even thought the constituions says a seperation of church and state? And the SCOTUS ruled in the gay couples favor? And now is trying to fight against paying attorney fees for the gay couple that she denied? That kim davis?
I mean thats pretty out-right fraud, but plenty of scientific fraud is more… idk if I would say nefarious, but certainly as damaging. There is so much pressure to get “certain” results. Its much much more work to detect either intentional or “self-delusioned” statistical fraud. Science is already incredibly difficult when you don’t have the pressure on you to generate specific results.
Healthcare and insurance are for profit industries and the corporations running the healthcare and insurance business don’t give a fuck about the health of the patients. They want all the monies and want to move patients through as quickly and cheaply as possible to maximize their profits.
It’s exactly this. The policies put in place by “healthcare administrators” (MBAs and such with healthcare flavoring, not people that actually know how to care for people’s health like doctors and nurses) are designed to process the most patience in the least amount of face time possible, so that each doctor and nurse can see more patients per day, meaning more office visit fees, meaning higher profit. My dad calls it the “cattle shoot” and I feel that’s a pretty apt analogy. It’s the same general reason that fast food restaurants and pharmacies and department stores are perpetually understaffed: fewer staff members means lower “overhead” costs.
Honestly, I think this is not true, in my experience at least. I think suing doctors was a feature of the '90s and early 2000s, but now people are so poor they can’t afford lawyers to sue a doctor for them, and medical malpractice runs so rampant that doctors don’t even seem to care at all. Everyone has had a bad running with a doctor, yet you’re very unlikely to hear of someone who has sued a doctor and gotten away with it.
What the US has isn't free market capitalism. It is capitalism but with government imposed rules that are harmful to the common person. Your insurance depends your employer and you don't get a reasonable choice - they put in $1000/month that if you go elsewhere you lose that. Of course what your employer wants and what you want are different. Your employer wants the lowest costs for something expensive, and they want you to not quit until they are ready to get rid of you. You want some service with that insurance, but you are not a player with power so you don't get that.
I feel compelled to point that out though as government provided health care is not the only possible solution, and I'm in the group that would oppose that. However I have provided a better alternative: eliminate the deductions for employer provided insurance. (I think the above about other benefits jobs provide - I should be comparing paycheck not "fringe benefits".
The profit motive needs to be removed from healthcare, or patients will continue to get fucked.
Healthcare needs to be separated from employment, and the profit motive needs to be removed from healthcare.
Should the government run it? Maybe not, but what’s the alternative? It’s like every election. Choosing one of two bad choices and hoping you choose the less bad.
And in the case of healthcare, I’ll take government run, profit free, tax funded healthcare over what we have now.
Also, I don’t see how eliminating the deductions helps. And I don’t mean that in a snarky way. I’m genuinely asking how that would make the situation better.
When companies pay me more if I don't take their insurance I have an option to choose something better. Right now I have no optioniso nobody cares to serve me.
This might be better for wealthy people but it’s hard to see how this would benefit the very poorest who are in most need of health care. What does this solution do for them?
Only a tiny minority who mostly don't have jobs and thus no insurance and so we already need to do something different. For the middle class this is better.
The middle class is much larger. Not ignoring the plight of them, but don't force something subpar on me just for a small percetage. With several hundred americans there are a lot of poor but still a tiny percentage
What about contracting a terminal illness like cancer where you might not be able to work. You need a job to keep your healthcare but if an illness or disability that you have or get at some point stops you from working and you need to pay for that healthcare, what do you do?
The policies out in place by healthcare and hospitals arent forced by government.. these policies are by the companies so its not even about “but da gubnent is ebil!”
I agree on the stop using brave part, but if your blog starts with this argument, your opinion piece means shit
Why was appointing Eich as CEO so controversial? It’s because he donated $1,000 in support of California’s Proposition 8 in 2008, which was a proposed amendment to California’s state constitution to ban same-sex marriage. Eich wrote a blog post defending himself in 2012, when the donation was initially discovered, where did not apologize and denied the donation made him a bigot
Ask the doctors who moved out of their home states instead of risking being jailed for “performing an abortion” when they were doling out life-saving medicine.
A new shooter that Sony launched a couple weeks ago and have subsequently cancelled and is offering refunds. So basically an astronomical waste of money.
Sony released a more realistic looking big budget Overwatch clone. It was fine, but nobody cared, because nobody wants a $40 live service Overwatch clone where all the characters have similar silhouettes. They spent 8 years making an okay game for nobody. If they’d done something different with the same basic characters and gunplay it could have maybe been good. They didn’t though, so estimates suggested they sold about 25,000 copies worldwide before pulling it from their store and refunding everyone.
Just use whatever works best for you. Just make sure there is a way you can easily export data from the tool in case you need to migrate to something else in the future.
Second this, whatever you pick never let someone else “own” your data because then they own your company. If you cant export data freely so it can be imported into another system, then its not yours.
Image 1 is left hand and you can see where I had an operation on the ring finger and you can also the pinky bent at 90 degrees. As well as all my ripped skin.
Image 2/3 is right hand and the main issue is finger 2, and the arrows are pointing at a very pronounced tendon and this is the one that is causing a lot of pain and I don’t know if climbing is exasperating the issue.
Yeah, I would stop, or at the very least get a professional opinion. And stay away from hobbies that beat the shit out of your hands.
Long distance cycling might not have a crazy mental workout but it’ll wear you out. You could do more challenging hikes, or you might need to replace it with 2 hobbies, I’m just some dude on the Internet.
I think I knew that I should stop, but just needed to hear someone else say it. That said I will have a chat with the doctor and see what they suggest.
Cycling is a good suggestion as running isn’t something I can do too often, but could mix it up. Hiking is something I want to do but I need to travel and camp really for that so not something I can use to keep my mind from going to dark places too much.
kbin.life
Oldest