BCG isn’t nearly as protective as modern vaccines aim to be. The GSK vaccine in question in the article and similar ones in development in other research groups are aiming to improve protection over BCG.
It’s insane how common latent TB is on a global scale and it’s quite a challenging problem to solve from a technical standpoint.
BCG is about 100 years old, and only ever worked at all in sometimes preventing infants/toddlers from getting a systemic TB infection. Source: exclusively worked in TB vaccine research for 14 years, and have had at least one TB vaccine project for the other 8 years of my career.
The people in these comments talking like this is “just another day in a US city” have no fucking idea what they’re talking about. This is not the kind of violence that randomly happens. This person was clearly targeted.
They also fail to grasp the concept of “per capita” crime/murder statistics.
Per capita? Really? Try per capita gun murders around the world and see what countries the US keeps company with. I mean, your argument is basically because there are lots of people, being shot is NBD because the odds are low because there are lots of people?
And yeah, again, compared to other places this is the kind of violence that happens in the US.
However, this was a targeted shooting. A deliberate murder. That does tend to be a more rare occurrence, but it’s dishonest to break it out and treat it separately from the overall use of crime related gun use in the US.
What? Way to miss the point entirely. Not only that, but you’ve completely misrepresented my argument.
First: yes, this was clearly a targeted shooting, so this discussion doesn’t really apply to this specific case. However…
I haven’t said anything was no big deal, just pointing out basic statistics. Using the concept of “per capita,” when discussing phenomena among very large groups of people, is one of the (if not the) only ways to glean any valuable information from the data.
1,000 gun crimes seems like a lot in a town of 23,000 people. 1,000 gun crimes in a city of 2,000,000 people? Not so much… (obviously these numbers were made up to make a point)
No, I didn’t miss your point. I understand perfectly what you meant. However, you did miss my pointing out of your use of statistics via per capita as an argument to water down risk against the broader view of the US gun crime rate vs the rest of the world to point out that yes, Indeed, this is a US problem.
Actually, I was agreeing with you. I hadn’t posted anything prior, so you couldn’t have been agreeing or disagreeing with me. I think you confused me for the other person. 😀
“A targeted shooting a deliberate murder… that does tend to be more rare”
Accidental fatal shootings are well known to exceed intentional ones.
It’s rare to get an article on individual targeted killings, but they do in fact comprise the majority of killings. So no, this is not a rare form of killing at all, it’s simply being reported because it’s another journalist.
Wouldn’t surprise me one bit. There’s an epidemic of violence going through the conservative movement right now. They’ve been growing more and more violent. See Jan 6. and all the terrorist attacks/shootings coming from their side lately.
“Either the door was open, or the offender knew how to get the door open,” he said. “We just don’t know yet.”
Detectives believe Kruger’s death may have been the result of a domestic dispute or may have been drug-related, according to three law enforcement sources with knowledge of the case. The sources, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss an ongoing investigation, said police investigators recovered troubling text messages between Kruger and a former partner. Investigators also recovered methamphetamine inside Kruger’s bedroom, the sources said.
In recent months, he’d written on social media about a variety of alarming incidents at his home.
In April, he posted that an ex-partner had broken into his home. “The door was locked, so he had somehow obtained a copy of my keys,” he wrote. He had allowed the man, whom he’d known for years “before his troubles,” to stay at his house briefly after being released from jail. He said he was able to deescalate the situation and the man eventually left, and he changed his locks.
In August, someone threw a rock through his home window, he said. Then, about two weeks ago, he wrote on Facebook that someone came to his house searching for their boyfriend — “a man I’ve never met once in my entire life.” The person called themselves “Lady Diabla, the She-Devil of the Streets” and threatened him, he wrote.
I have an uncle who was killed due to an article he was doing research for. Sadly, he ended up in a coma and then someone came back to finish the job. It had a large impact on my mother and her siblings, though it was a few years before I was born. I had always wondered how much of it was an exaggeration until a couple years ago when we found an article saying basically the same things the aunts and uncles always had.
That is a great idea, but no. He was living in another part of the country from them at the time of the initial attack. The article was written in that area.
You’re of course 100% right. It looks like a cheap ploy to me though. McCarthy was not a friend to Democrats and he didn’t kick Pelosi out of her office. It looks like either McHenry is trying to earn brownie points with the freedom caucus by beating up on Pelosi or maybe he’s kicking her out of her larger office so he can use it as a bargaining chip to garner support for his run on the speakership.
McCarthy was not a friend to Democrats and he didn’t kick Pelosi out of her office.
McCarthy seemingly followed the norm of letting the previous speaker keep their office if they wanted. McHenry is pissed at Democrats for helping 8 super crazy Republicans oust his friend as Speaker. Watching McHenry gavel out yesterday’s session it was obvious that he is very angry at what happened.
That’s definitely a possibility. I really should go back and watch the vote on YouTube or something. It’s obviously a little silly to be upset with Democrats in this scenario. Hey McCarthy can always take consolation in the fact that his name will be in some history book somewhere as long as people are interested in American politics. Ozymandias would be proud.
He should probably blame the freedom caucus then. Or hey, maybe even his buddy McCarthy for accepting such an obvious poison pill with the rule change that enabled his ouster.
“Office space doesn’t matter to me, but it seems to be important to them,” she said. “Now that the new Republican Leadership has settled this important matter, let’s hope they get to work on what’s truly important for the American people.”
One time, I put my hand out to stop a kid from running into the street.
Most people were like “Woah that kid almost died.” But one Karen looking woman had a “How dare you touch that child” look.
I’m not going to stop saving kids who run into the street. But it did make me question when to involve myself or not. And I can see a lot of people hesitating because some fuckface has something stupid to say.
You inferred one look from a stranger experiencing a traumatic event, that apparently wasn’t reinforced by conversation with her after the fact!? I don’t think you should modify anything about your instincts or responses…
Uh, no? No one’s analyzing here! I basically told them to trust their instincts, rather than defer to the minority opinion of “all men are pedophiles” (based on their interpretation of the Karen’s response). Same advice I would give male lifeguards who would hesitate in possibly saving a life because maybe one person would be hyper-sensitive to any contact. Do what’s good and true and right immediately, and deal with haters later…
So no, I will assess every situation. I ain’t touching a woman who’s down.
Thank the assholes of the world for that… And also the coworker who flirted with me, and when I didn’t flirt with her, she accused me of sexual harassment and I got fired - 30 years ago.
The shit is real, (shitty) women have made the bed, they can lie in it.
Don’t you know? Every woman who is middle aged and doesn’t give an appreciating look all the time I want is a misandrist Karen. And if someone dies, it’s her and other women’s fault.
Source for accusations against men leading to quantifiably worse outcomes than accusations against women or NB people? I haven’t seen the research that backs up your assertion.
Yep. People have strange selective views on things.
I was standing with the car at the crossing where it enters the main road. A kid came racing down the bike path from the local primary school on his scooter and tried to get around my car without wasting speed, i.e. slowing down. Physics said: “NO” in no uncertain terms, and the kid kissed the road in front of my car. I got out to help, but he already got up, probably more annoyed about loosing speed than anything else, answered negative on my inquiry if he was hurt or needed help, and was off like lighting.
Two days later, the police was at my door, responding to a neighbors claim that I had run over a kid that day…
I could imagine that neighbour just heard some noise, looked outside, and then just concluded, you must’ve hit that child, from what the aftermath looked like…
Exactly. As much as I believe in being a good person and trying to stop others from coming to harm, there is now a not-nonsignificant chance that I end up being prosecuted for something as a result of stepping in to attempt to save a life. It deincentivizes such activities.
A man stopped my son with his hand from crossing at the signal because a car didn’t see him and could have mowed him down. I think a lot about how that could have gone badly if the man had second guessed himself for even a moment. Legally and socially, we need to be on the side of anyone who makes a split second decision to help in a crisis.
I wish you the best of luck with that. Poor taxes were the strategy behind the NFA - its incredible unpopularity guarantees it won’t make it through either branch of Congress let alone both.
What a brilliantly uneducated idea. Thanks for turning my hunting season into a 3k dollar minimum adventure instead of a cheap way for me to put food on my table.
It literally is when we live in this day and age. If you aren’t living in a tribe somewhere, the bottom line is, you do this because you want to end something’s life.
I’ll be sure to inform my hunting friends we’re all full of bloodlust for our interest in filling the freezer with cheap, quality meat which also serves to provide population control for an invasive and damaging species because a rando on the Internet said so.
I feel for you and your apparent limited ability to consider other situations.
No only responsible gun owners deserve the right. Responsibility means underwriting yourself or with an insurer the cost of the risks posed by your toys.
Right so only rich people, got it. Gotta spend money to prove your life is worth protecting after all, if you have no money you might as well go ahead and be victimized and die, good riddance!
Toys? This is the mentality that makes reform difficult. You are part of the problem, not the solution.
There are those of us who use these tools exactly as they are meant to and really get annoyed at both the “AR at the grocery store” crowd and the “Thousand dollar bullets will show them” crowd.
And those people get arrested. What aren’t we understanding here? Selling weapons of war should be easier than smokes or booze? What kind of logic is that?
Because you’re likely using it as a tactic to make them sound scary, and you likely don’t know what you’re talking about. Do you mean the Colt 1911 or m1 garand that were a gun of choice for the first and second world war, or the AR-15 that has been taken to no wars ever by anyone anywhere?
Their statement was I’m not seeing a ton of these mass shootings committed by the ultra wealthy, where are you seeing that? You provided a single reference to an outlier - seemingly aware it’s an outlier e.g. calling-out deadliest.
It’s hard to see how a single data-point - an outlier, at that - is somehow the requested data let alone ton of.
I’m the one being told I should have a gun, not the one saying I have a gun! Besides, the right to self-defense is all about bullets it seems, so as long as I can chuck bullets at the guy, I’ll be legally protected!
Well, better than a knife that makes you get close to an armed attacker, and they don’t make holsters for baseball bats, tasers are 60% effective and that’s the ones the police can get that we can’t, and mace is for non-deadly threats, so you should have that too, but time and place
Ok fair, I worded that poorly, I should have said “is only effective when the attacker gets in close enough proximity to stab, which puts you at undue risk of harm” but I didn’t think the Pedantic Police would be out, my mistake.
Even if I was the world’s foremost knife fighter, and took them all out, I’d be in legal trouble because I have no rights to self-defense if I don’t have bullets.
Only rich people should be allowed to shoot up malls and schools. If you only use them in self defense, bullets are worth a grand each. This is an plutocracy, and such delights of mass murder should not belong to the common man.
There’s certainly an argument to be made that we’d be seeing much more innovation and availability if not for the sheer SOT sandbagging.
It continues to blow my mind that basic hearing protection is somehow restricted especially when the countries the restrict/ban crowd loves comparing the US to generally consider suppressors to be essential equipment because of the sound reduction.
Says the guy who is vastly unaware of how many responsibly armed citizens they cross paths with on a daily basis, and who have demonstrably prevented mass shootings. You have no idea the hidden safety net you live under and yet you want it destroyed because of the few bad actors.
Yup. Yes. A few bad actors spoiled it for the rest of you. Waa waa waa…grow up. Y’all can’t figure out if guns are a hobby or a necessity, but you seem to always fall back on both points pretty quickly. It’s sad that your “interests” seem to threaten our very existence, yet you feel like you have some inalienable right to kill others. It’s extremely sad and disappointing. I suggest you grow up and find other ways to entertain yourself.
Y’all can’t figure out if guns are a hobby or a necessity, but you seem to always fall back on both points pretty quickly.
Oh? I’m not sure how you interpreted their highlight of the sheer commonality of those legally carrying with no issue as either of these things.
It’s sad that your “interests” seem to threaten our very existence, yet you feel like you have some inalienable right to kill others.
I’m not sure how you feel threatened by the mere existence of inanimate objects. Even extrapolating to the action - that of homicide - I’m not sure how you’d feel threatened by such a thing, especially so disproportionately to its lack of prevalence related to the other ways you can be killed and their statistical likelihood.
I’m also not sure how you interpret the right to bear arms - repeatedly highlighted for self-defense purposes in judgements and judge opinions - as somehow an inalienable right to kill others. Unless I’m missing something, that kill others part tends to result in the offender spending quite some time in prison.
It’s extremely sad and disappointing. I suggest you grow up and find other ways to entertain yourself.
You may wish to take your own advice - you seem unable to think beyond your own preconceived and irrational views on a thing, even aside from your demonstrated inability to consider how your criticisms and suggestions might apply to yourself rather hypocritically.
And just in case you’re looking for your “good guys with a gun,” they’re all standing outside of a school, waiting and shitting their pants. It’s pathetic.
I’m not sure anyone - anyone - would argue police are “good guys”. If anything, they’re an active demonstration that those in power cannot be the only ones with firearms given the extent to which they maliciously misuse that power.
But sure - use the incompetence and cowardice of a given police department as some absurd emotional appeal.
You seem like a pleasant individual, wishing death on those you disagree with views on Constitutional rights.
FYI the powder used in manufacturing ammo is not explosive. Smokeless powder simply burns fast, and it’s generally safe and relatively easy to construct your own ammo at home. I have a couple of reloading presses at home, have made hundreds of cartridges of high quality ammo for cheaper than you can buy it. The cartridges that I produce with novice to intermediate level experience on the press are actually higher quality than factory ammo, unless you spend extra for the Match Grade stuff.
Piracy is an accessibility and quality control problem, not a cost one. I pirate pretty much everything but still purchase physical releases so I can support content creators. Of course most Netflix originals never get physical releases so f*ck em.
In my case is a cost one for sure, I just cant afford to pay for every single streaming platform, I pay for spotify no problem, all my music is in there.
When did they do this? Nobel committee doesn’t always say “Hey, nice discovery heres an award” they often wait to see how it pans out. Example: the folk who laid the groundwork so we could get the covid-19 mrna vaccines got prizes this year. I don’t know how long ago they did that work but it didn’t start in 2019.
Nobel prizes are usually at minimum 20 years after the work was performed. Kariko and Weissman are on the close end of the bell curve, having done much of their RNA injection research in the mid 2000s, with their major breakthrough happening in 2005.
The facts are not in dispute, the crazy fraudulent way the trumpet is used to do bussiness is not a secret, he himself said ‘Im very smart’ when asked about not paying taxes. Hillaryous!
I don’t care, and I’m not here to argue your worthless opinion. There MUST be a trial, because that’s everyone’s right. No one is above the law… well, except for the corrupt establishment that finds ways around law.
In the event of a civil war, the states that suffer the worst losses from starvation are probably going to be the poorer, landlocked states that run a deficit year after year.
thats one dumb talking point son, weak and dumb just like the orange traitor, and I didn’t express any opinion he’s said all those dumb things, and his injury lawyers are exactly what he deserves cause the other ones are indicted in Ga., them walls are creeping in and his desperate grimace outside court is GOLD! not to mention the MAGA tears.
A summary judgment isn’t a trial. You can pull this bs on your fellow teenagers, not on adults.
“This is all legit” doesn’t cut it. The judge can’t make a decision without a lawyer defending his case. This is your kind of bullshit. The teenager kind.
Your brain is a teenager’s brain if you’re really not lying. You probably believe CNN, don’t you?
I read, but Trump, regardless of how much you hate him, has the right to have a jury of his peers + full trial with witnesses on the matter. Especially on a matter that’s really controversial. This is corruption attempted to destroy him, nothing else. I’m not stupid to believe any of this is done in good faith.
Proper court filings showing that the judge took that decision based on the lawyer actively waiving it.
Though I have to warn you that I’ve seen the filings before. Good luck with that. But in good faith, I’m still open to being wrong. Show me that then I’ll definitely change my mind.
You can’t exploit it. I know some people won’t like to hear this, but Chinese expats are a security risk if they have any family still in China. It’s well known at this point that the Chinese gov threatens family members to pressure and blackmail residents abroad to perform espionage.
100%. How many instances were there where they just straight up stole resources/IP? CCP backed Industrial sabotage and IP theft is very much a concern.
My old company started a collaboration with a Chinese government subsidiary to get market access. When they announced it at a company meeting they almost literally said, “yes, we know they are trying to steal our IP”
Not here for this xenophobia. The people leaving are the people who don’t particularly like the government.
It’s a little ridiculous we have to keep saying that it’s not OK to say “all X people can not be trusted.” Even if the X is Chinese people, I know China is today’s boogeyman. When X was Japanese people we got internment camps.
You’re not really refuting the point though. It’s not that ‘Chinese people are untrustworthy’. It’s ‘Immigrants from China are vulnerable to blackmail and extortion by the CCP’.
The point as written in their comment is that we can’t use smart Chinese immigrants at all. Quote “Chinese expats are a security risk.” No nuance.
Anyone can be vulnerable to blackmail. People with gambling debts, people with credit card debt, business entanglements, money problems of any kind, cheaters, people who request to stay in a Russian suite once visited by Obama just to have prostitutes pee on the bed. Could be anyone.
In positions where blackmail is a concern, we have vetting procedures. So we can do better than just blanket saying Chinese people can’t be trusted.
I do get your point, but everyone is right here. The difference between “Chinese expats” and “people with family in China” is really splitting hairs. And it IS going to lead to xenophobia, especially in tech.
They don’t have to particularly like the government in order to engage in espionage. Like the commenter above said, they just have to have family still in China. Just within the last few months, there were two separate cases of USN sailors, both from China but naturalized citizens, who turned over classified information to the Chinese government following family pressure from the Mainland.
We should never engage in the sort of blind discrimination that resulted in internment camps. The associated risk of having family/ties in China just needs to be properly evaluated when placing people with family in/ties to China in positions of trust. The vast majority of Chinese people will never engage in espionage. And they should also never be unduly punished for the actions of the very few among them who do.
Careful if you don’t think Chinese people are mindless CCP drones with no independent thought you’ll be down voted. Really disappointed with Lemmy’s community so far it’s just as bad as reddit.
People are definitely more reactionary here (imo). The ‘downvote train’ can be just as powerful as reddit if other commenters don’t like what you say.
You’re being hyperbolic though if you’re referring to my comment in particular, I never said Chinese people are mindless CCP drones. I said that Chinese expats with family still in China are a security risk. I hoped that anyone reading that sentence would extrapolate from it that I meant in relation to military / national security roles, and there was not a need to directly specify that I didn’t mean every Chinese person is a security risk. Reading it back though I can see how it wasn’t very clear.
Yes I meant to be hyperbolic because that’s the general sentiment I see in the post and community. Not trying to call you out in particular. Though I would like to see some more sources for “Chinese gov threatens family members to pressure and blackmail residents abroad to perform espionage” because the main source I see from searching for it is from the FBI director himself.
Not to mention the recent string of hacking groups that have clearly had internal information.
They accessed an air-gapped system at Microsoft because they knew who to target.
They stole an expired cert out of a stacktrace that was moved from the air-gapped system to a compromised developer machine. They then were able to use this expired cert as part of an exploit chain.
The judge’s ruling goes against the First and Fourth Amendments (free speech, illegal search and seizure), and established case law regarding these amendments.
You don’t have to cite the cases, but what case law?
There’s no special Fourth Amendment right for journalists. The Fourth Protects warrantless search and seizure. The police here had a warrant. If the warrant affidavit didn’t support the probable cause, how? The crime alleged seems clear to me.
There is no First Amendment case law that allows journalists to commit crimes.
I don’t think they are in the right, or in the wrong. I don’t know enough about it because nobody seems to be able to explain it.
I know “the police chief(?) may have misrepresented” blah blah blah, isn’t a reason. The police chief did not write the warrant application. What fact in the warrant was misrepresented?
Yeah well, I didn’t know what you were trying to say.
Okay, a nexus issue, that’s something, still not a misrepresentation, it’s a scope and nexus issue. I have to think about that one and maybe another look at the warrants. That’s on the judge, as your quote says, it “essentially threw Judge Viar under the bus.”
Okay, a nexus issue, that’s something, still not a misrepresentation, it’s a scope and nexus issue.
That’s just splitting hairs.
I know “the police chief(?) may have misrepresented” blah blah blah, isn’t a reason.
Never mind the “may have”; he actually did misrepresent the facts:
The police chief claimed the reporter (Phyllis Zorn) could only obtain the driver’s record by impersonating the “victim” or lying about the reasons the record was being sought.
Zorn said an unidentified source gave her a copy of the driver’s record, which she then verified on a state public records database. This directly contradicts the police chief’s accusations.
The newspaper said it didn’t run the story because they felt their source’s motives were questionable. Then after the raid, they did because it was relevant to the raid.
According to the newspaper’s attorney, Bernie Rhodes:
state law says motor vehicle records are the subject of the open records law, except records related to someone’s physical or mental condition, expunged records and driver’s license photos.
“What Zorn did is perfectly legal under both Kansas and U.S. law.”
If you read carefully, the newspaper’s argument is that the law intends to make driving records records publicly available, so the paper was allowed to access the records.
That’s true if they are released to the paper under FOIA. These records contained personal information on private individuals, so they were not foiable, and were publicly available only if one of the 14 rights of access from that federal statute applies. And indeed there was no FOIA request. So, the journalist either impersonated the subject of the record, or falsely certified to one of the rights of access enumerated in the statute.
You keep moving the goalposts. First it’s a misrepresentation made the warrant invalid, then it’s that the warrant was too broad, now it’s that the conduct alleged in the warrant is true but was not actually criminal. Hmm.
The judge allowed the warrant based on the information she got from the police chief, which is questionable and will have to be sorted out in court, period.
According to the newspaper’s attorney, who of course says it was legal!
And this memo he issued for “interested media outlets” outlines the how and why.
If you’re an attorney and feel so strongly about this, perhaps you can represent the (now former) police chief, pro bono.
Once again, the police chief did not write the warrant affidavit. The judge didn’t do anything based the police chief. The officer that applied for the warrant did though, he referred the chief to internal affairs after the driving record somehow implicated him in a crime. If he committed a crime, charge him.
The memo doesn’t explain any reasoning or recite any facts. It merely quotes some statutes and then highlights some language. Each time, it conveniently stops the highlighting right before the list of reasons why many driving records are not public record except for cause, defined under the statute. The reporter still doesn’t meet any of the valid rights of access.
For example, the lawyer highlighted the right of access that applies to statistical research. The reporter was not doing statistical research, so why is it highlighted? Seems the only reason is to try and confuse people.
The lawyer is saying that because many driving records are disclosable for cause, all of them are. Or, that because the statute’s purpose is to make certain driving records public, the reporter was free to submit false information to obtain the records. They are shit arguments.
As I said before, if you think the judge and police chief are in the right here, fine; you have a right to your opinion.
I remain unconvinced.
Unless you’re the judge in the upcoming cases, who cares?
Edit: About the next comment – straw man my ass. I restated, word for word, exactly what I had stated eight posts above.
Also, more recent audio from body camera footage shows the police chief was searching for information about himself during the raid, which may have been his motivation for the raid in the first place.
news
Active
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.