No, it’s the same incident but it was another guy called Vernon Unsworth, I think he was the head of the operation whereas the one in the article was “just” one of the guys on the team providing medical aid.
I’m also glad that the article does not mention Musk and his whole stupid PR stunt at all but instead focuses on the people actually involved.
The thousands of workers that will lose their jobs. And every other worker that recognises how technology replacing their roles or being used to destroy salaries affects them.
I’m glad you’re so sheltered and insulated from the consequences of it that you can behave this way, but the rest of us aren’t.
This has been around a long time and I’m not seeing anything new in this article, this seems like mostly regulatory changes nothing actually medical. This is effectively a pancrease transplant, and the problem is that type 1 diabetes is an autoimmune disorder. That means there are only two viable options, permanent immuno-suppresents with the many many many terrible side effects that involves, or incapsulating the pancreatic cells in some kind of membrane that isolates them from the immune system which introduces its own set of potential complications. Either way this is far from a “cure” and is at best an alternative treatment, and a highly problematic one at that.
Kevin Connor, a spokesperson for Monterey Bay Aquarium, said Otter 841 is considered a danger to the public because it is ignoring its natural survival instincts, ABC reported.
"When we see this type of behavior exhibited by otters, it is a sign that they no longer have that healthy fear of human beings that allows them to stay safe in the wild away from us," Conner said.
I’m reading your words, Kevin, I am. But my heart is stronger than my brain. It wants that Otter to win.
If they’re going to require historical scholarship when evaluating gun laws, they should not be surprised when that effort exposes the lie that “guns were allowed to be brought anywhere for any reason”
After all, even the famous shootout at the OK Corral happened over enforcement of a regulation prohibiting gun carrying in town.
The required historical scholarship is particularly before the Civil War as after slaves were freed Southern states implemented a series of laws that obviously were meant to disarm free Black Americans. This point is regarded as being a shift away from the original understanding.
OK Corral’s shootout occured in 1881 (after the war).
Also when looking for historical precedent favor is to be given to the commonly accepted practice. So if one town did X and the rest of the country did Y, Y is the correct historical precedent.
Purposive open carry, predicated on a valid purpose, allowed bankers, sheriffs, coachmen, judicial marshals, hunters, or persons who had been threatened, to carry concealed.
Habitual open carry on the other hand was never legal. It was a sign of a lawless, no good place, and was arrestable as a breach of peace, which it undeniably is.
It almost seems like a trap, they are all but saying “please stop protesting we can’t take it any more”, a protest becomes a coup/revolution if the authorities refuse to concede to the demands and are overwhelmed by the protesters
After reading the article, I was quite surprised to learn how often it happens. You would think that people would be more aware of their proximity to the road, because they are standing on it.
news
Active
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.