the only bad bit is that they didn’t share in kind whatever insight let them make it single shot
My non-expert understanding is that all the vaccines provide some protection with one shot and more protection with two. There might be real differences in how much of the total effect is in the second shot, but they are probably relatively minor. The reason different vaccines have different approved regimens is because the pharma companies made different choices regarding which regimen to use in clinical trials, and regulators will only approve an exact combination of vaccine and dosing regimen that was directly trialed. It would probably be better, all things considered, if they were more flexible on this point.
The problem: realistically speaking, Griffin should have lost his eyesight after becoming invisible, because if his eyes are fully transparent and light goes through them then there’s no way he can see.
The data: Griffin is canonically albino (which is like THE number one reason the invisibility thing works and yes he used himself as a test subject on purpose because of that). Thus he’d probably have very poor eyesight regardless. His notebooks are written in a cypher only he knows- who’s to say it’s not modified Braille?
The solution: Griffin is blind, so when he becomes invisible he can‘t really tell the difference because his eyes were useless anyway. He only knows his other subjects have become invisible either because he can perceive light pre-invisibility or because he has some sort of contraption that allows him to measure a material’s opacity, probably built with this purpose in the first place.
The text suggests that Griffin’s retinas are still visible. Though the Wikipedia article points out that this doesn’t quite solve all the problems.
It is the great dilemma for middle-class feminist mothers (and should be for their partners): how do you justify using far lower paid and dramatically less privileged women to care for your children so you are free to pursue your own, much better paid, higher-status work?
on economic grounds, presumably.
Simple, I will hire only men for the job, releasing me from all further concerns about the matter,
this whole line of inquiry amuses me because similar to gentrification and many other topics it all just boils down to “some people are richer than others and thus have more power to arrange the world to their liking” and working through the ethical and emotional ramifications of this.
I suppose asking a mother to neglect her own children to look after yours does ram the point home a little, even if the coercion isn’t coming from you but from impersonal economic forces that also have you in their grip.
We always just got dropped off at her house where her kids would also be; regs that stop people running small scale childminding services out of their homes are some of the problem
By deleting osha-official Tumblr has become the first social media platform to ban SFW content.
but they also banned nsfw content…. they’re the first webbed site to ban content…. all together…..
Tumblr staff opening tumblr: I better not see any goddamn content
[ID: White text on a red background. On the left is a question mark circle. The text reads: “This post was flagged because somewhere in your reblog there might be content.” There is a noticeable gap between the words “be” and “content.” /End ID]
I can’t find any posts that seem to know for sure what happened, but general scuttlebutt (that’s gossip for those who don’t speak old timey pirate) appears to be staff deactivated them for copyright infringement. Which is almost hilarious as they cited every post and their header literally directed you to visit the official OSHA site to “learn about your health and safety rights as an employee”. Unless it’s that someone thought it was literal OSHA? Or literal OSHA had some kind of issue with them? It’s not like anyone on tumblr expects “official” to actually mean anything.
And the other blog of the same name but with two dashes in the middle, it’s a parody that was supposed to play the evil twin so don’t go bashing them for something they had nothing to do with. But also don’t go there for real safely data.
I don’t see how it could be copyright infringement, since content produced by OSHA (or by any other part of the federal government, with a few exceptions) is automatically in the public domain. More likely the issue is that they were claiming to actually literally be operated by OSHA (they were a sufficiently dedicated and deadpan parody account that lots of people either thought they were real or admitted they weren’t sure), and Tumblr’s ToS says pretty clearly that you can’t claim to be someone you’re not.
Speaking of which I swear I’ve seen this mf’s name spelled like four different ways in the past couple of months. Almost a [Q/G/Gh/K/Kh]ad[d/h]afi situation
No! No! No! GORP literally stands for Good Old Raisins and Peanuts! Aka none of this newfangled chocolate shit! RAISINS AND PEANUTS ONLY. I Will die on this hill!! .
The Oxford English Dictionary cites a 1913 reference to the verb gorp, meaning “to eat greedily”, so the “good ol’ raisins and peanuts” explanation may be folk etymology.
Also, people can call things whatever they want, but I’ve tried doing just raisins and peanuts and it’s inedible. Maybe you don’t have to add chocolate but you have to add something.
why is it always a male character going mad avenging his dead wife and never a female character cradling her dying pure of heart husband in her arms then dragging the whole world down with her
is she avenging a pure of heart husband in that movie
Yes, the movie opens with her old gang crashing her wedding and killing everyone present including the groom (who doesn’t know about her old life and represents her attempt to get away from it).
the absolute mindfuck of learning that when americans said “pumpkin spice” they were talking about like. nutmeg and cinnamon. and not adding pumpkin flavouring to stuff
WHAT
Someone say psych right now
No, it’s true. It’s called that because it’s designed to be mixed into pumpkin purée (to make, e.g., pumpkin pie). Apparently in Britain it’s called “mixed spice”?
When a doctor makes a bad joke and I laugh, I’m sure what’s going on in their head is “I’m being friendly, I’m putting the patient at ease” but what’s going on in my head is “this person could deny me treatment on a whim, I better play along”.
On some level this feels like I’m being kind of unfair. It’s not a test, it’s an attempt at a normal friendly human interaction, and instead of reciprocating that I’m responding with insincerity and paranoia. But I’ve had doctors before who smiled and told me earnestly that they were on my side and restricted my access to care for stupid, petty reasons, and I have no reason to think that won’t happen again.
You can’t negate a power differential by being nice.
Sorry for taking this post somewhere unexpected.
So there is a lot of radical feminist theorising already about how every man-woman relationship is imbalanced because of ~~power relations~~. But some people take this too far, and they say “In order to reap the rewards of being loved, you have to subject yourself to the mortifying ordeal of being known, which makes heterosexual relationships imbalanced ~~power relations~~ somehow.“
Žižek also likes to talk about being friends with your boss, so I won’t repeat that here, but I have seen people say “It’s ~~power relations~~ when I go on a date and I have to laugh at a man’s jokes in order to sleep with him.“
I have also read takes like “Telling jokes is a method of oppression and laughing is collaboration and complicity even when they are genuinely funny.“
Which is to say this whole topic complex is primed for critique drift. It’s easy to look at this situation and to think “Doctors telling jokes is a problem and should be banned.“
Huh, these things look pretty disanalogous to me: While I don’t understand your exact point about gender, it’s nonobvious how to fix power imbalances between genders. But there are lots of things that would have an immediate and obvious effect of lessening the power imbalance between doctors and patients:
Make it easier to get prescription drugs without a prescription
Make it easier to get scheduled drugs
[US specific?] Break up cartels limiting the number of residency spots or otherwise limiting the supply of doctors
Reduce the credentials and knowledge someone needs to be allowed to treat a given condition to the bare minimum that’s actually needed for that condition
Make it harder to involuntarily (or pseudo-voluntarily) commit people to psychiatric hospitals. Change liability rules and other incentives away from the idea of preventing suicide at all costs
Of course, all of these come with their own cost-benefit comparison, but “have a norm against doctors making jokes or otherwise trying to be relatable” comes with a cost-benefit comparison too, and to me it looks like one that’s a lot worse. Am I missing some reason why people would cling to that idea and not any on my list?
One area where my point doesn’t really apply is situations where doctors are rationing access to some resource that’s actually scarce (as opposed to it being gatekept for some other reason). One central example here would be deciding who gets an organ transplant. But in this situation, I would expect the organ allocator to be more aware of the power differential (reducing the difference between how they see a social interaction and how you see it) and change their behavior accordingly. Furthermore, if they don’t, I’m not actually sure it’s that bad for us to critique drift our way into a social norm against organ allocators telling jokes.
I tend to think of “is this a resource that’s scarce for reason that isn’t made up?” as a spectrum, with organ transplants on the “yes” end, some complicated surgeries right next to it, medication that’s expensive because of patents close to it, and easier surgeries like orchiectomies closer to the middle; and with antibiotics, HRT, ED meds, stimulants, and pain meds all at the “no” end. I would have guessed that almost all of medicine happens close to the “no” end, am I off here?
While antibiotics themselves are not a very scarce resource, absence of antibiotic resistance at the population level very much is, so I would put antibiotics firmly in the category of things that need to be rationed, right up there with organ transplants.
(Arguably even higher than that, because we could have private markets in organs if we wanted to, but private markets in not-taking-antibiotics would be infeasible.)
