|
New episode tonight! In the meantime have this delightful "in discussion" video of John with his good friend Nell Scovell, in case you haven't seen it already. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r5xlwkvHIF8
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2019 13:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 16:06 |
|
|
It felt like John was back to his usual energy levels this episode (and holy poo poo that was some scary stuff) but I'm real disappointed they didn't actually book Momz In Da Hood to close the show.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2019 15:38
|
|
|
Snowglobe of Doom posted:It felt like John was back to his usual energy levels this episode (and holy poo poo that was some scary stuff) but I'm real disappointed they didn't actually book Momz In Da Hood to close the show. Haha yeah I was totally expecting them too, highly disappointed
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2019 15:47
|
|
|
Snowglobe of Doom posted:It felt like John was back to his usual energy levels this episode (and holy poo poo that was some scary stuff) but I'm real disappointed they didn't actually book Momz In Da Hood to close the show. HBO lost their cultural relevance a couple of weeks ago.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2019 18:16
|
|
|
Snowglobe of Doom posted:Momz In Da Hood to close the show. I'm not. That moment was a glorious carpet pull. They're usually so good at booking weird gimmick celebs (loving Lord Buckethead!) that it was a fun twist.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2019 00:16
|
|
|
Good episode, but if you want to be even more scared, consider that the FDA's processes with it's terrifying flaws are still far more stringent in many ways than the rest of the world, including the EU: https://www.icij.org/investigations/implant-files/how-lobbying-blocked-european-safety-checks-for-dangerous-medical-implants/
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2019 01:01
|
|
|
Alhazred posted:HBO lost their cultural relevance a couple of weeks ago. I mean, not really. They'll definitely take a hit in subscriptions because lol at WW picking up the slack but HBO was a bigish thing in TV pre got and I doubt they're going to fade into obscurity afterwards.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2019 02:26
|
|
|
Also, they don't have to fund the cgi dragons anymore.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2019 04:36
|
|
|
Propaganda Machine posted:Also, they don't have to fund the cgi dragons anymore. But they still have to fund Oliver's shopping habit.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2019 11:32
|
|
|
Propaganda Machine posted:Also, they don't have to fund the cgi dragons anymore. But now they have to fund heavily armored talking polar bears. Macdeo Lurjtux fucked around with this message at 17:31 on Jun 4, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2019 17:26
|
|
|
Seems like one of those things where surgeons have no idea about how hardware works so they just assume the best. On the other side of the coin, there's people without medical licenses or approval hacking their insulin pumps to automatically adjust and desperately buying up outdated models with exploitable security holes because medical companies have no interest in providing the service they want at an affordable price. https://medium.com/neodotlife/dana-lewis-open-aps-hack-artificial-pancreas-af6ef23a997f https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bouYRMItWnI But there's no clear line between that and more wild and crazy stuff like DIY electrotherapy, injecting CRISPR into random parts of your body, and trying to use quartz to cure cancer.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2019 18:22
|
|
|
The weirdest thing about the whole FDA Approved vs. FDA Cleared process is that you can get something Cleared based on something else that has only been Cleared. Like I would have assumed the rule would be written so you can't Clear something based on similarity to something else that has been Cleared. You should have to base your "existing design" on something that has been Approved. Having these huge crazy family trees of inventions that trace back to one root Approved thing seems like an exceptionally weird process to have, especially in a medical context where like, you KNOW they took basic biology and they are aware of how much things can change over time through seemingly small generational mutations.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2019 03:26
|
|
|
So I kind of work in medical device safety, and for the record the 510k process isn't as simple as just pointing to a predicate device and saying "We're basically that". It's still a pretty involved process requiring tons of new documentation, risk analysis, often a full usability study (for the last bit less in the case of the stuff here and in The Bleeding Edge because that was mostly implantable things). It's still pretty rigorous and the FDA does, unlike a lot of regulatory bodies, actually do a decent review of the data and can reject things, even in the 510k clearance process. But the whole "what can you use as a predicate device and how old can it be" is a big issue. The chains can be really loving bizarre and the final root device can end up being a hell of a lot different than the device being approved. Last I heard they were tightening the rules on that though. And for implantable devices especially, they reeeaally need to improve on what needs full premarket approval (and therefore clinical trials). That's not even getting into the fact that some things can be exempt from even the 510k process and have an even lower level of rigor for approval. I'd still trust something 510k cleared over something CE marked any day. Mr Luxury Yacht fucked around with this message at 06:39 on Jun 5, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2019 05:25
|
|
|
Wow, what the gently caress Mississippi?
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2019 09:41
|
|
|
Skippy McPants posted:Wow, what the gently caress Mississippi? Is that a serious question?
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2019 16:03
|
|
|
Skippy McPants posted:Wow, what the gently caress Mississippi? Throughout my youth and well into adulthood, Georgia's flag also had the Southern Cross on it. That changed in the early 2000s. (It was added in the 1950s for... let's just say "reasons.")
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2019 17:40
|
|
|
It was so English for a while there, I thought John was gonna get his green card revoked. Although really you'd think they could just look up a picture of Rory from back then to compare. tarlibone posted:Throughout my youth and well into adulthood, Georgia's flag also had the Southern Cross on it. That changed in the early 2000s. (It was added in the 1950s for... let's just say "reasons.") They changed it from the more well known confederate flag to the "official" confederate flag, the Stars and Bars, the flag that Mississippi is splitting the difference between. Dang, all of these states that reference the confederacy with their flags are states that voted against the ERA. How 'bout that. I could've sworn that it was South Carolina that just straight-up had the confederate flag, but their flag's actually pretty nice. Anyways, human rights are good, oppression and lies are bad. If we put more rights into the constitution, stocking the Supreme Court with judges with bad opinions wouldn't be such a prominent problem.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2019 04:27
|
|
|
SlothfulCobra posted:It was so English for a while there, I thought John was gonna get his green card revoked. The supreme court would still probably be a problem given the magnitude of the badness of the opinions of the people it's being stocked with (I mean Scalia was a supreme court justice and interpreted the "everyone has equal rights" amendment as "well not EVERYONE has equal rights"), but yeah the problem is certainly exacerbated by how much wiggle room they've been given.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2019 04:46
|
|
|
Alan_Shore posted:Is that a serious question? Rhetorical but, like John, I tend to forget whenever I haven't seen the flag in a while.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2019 05:02
|
|
|
Skippy McPants posted:Rhetorical but, like John, I tend to forget whenever I haven't seen the flag in a while. I didn't know about the flag, but the fact it was Mississippi... it just made sense
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2019 05:46
|
|
|
SlothfulCobra posted:I could've sworn that it was South Carolina that just straight-up had the confederate flag, but their flag's actually pretty nice. They used to fly it next to the state flag just so no one got the wrong idea about the state, but I believe it's since come down.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2019 11:19
|
|
|
as someone who routinely brings up the fact that he took 2 years of German in high school in regular conversation, i am offended to be in any way similar to Brian Kilmeade
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2019 04:10
|
|
|
DC Murderverse posted:as someone who routinely brings up the fact that he took 2 years of German in high school in regular conversation Is this real? I honestly can't tell anymore.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2019 05:22
|
|
|
kittenmittons posted:Is this real? I honestly can't tell anymore. Ja, das stimmt!
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2019 06:24
|
|
|
I agree with just about everything except that you should ever talk to the police.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2019 14:38
|
|
|
It is true though, Norway has a lot of dirt on foreign politicians.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2019 17:37
|
|
|
So there was an episode last night? Huh. My DVR hosed up but we just took it as a skip week.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2019 19:30
|
|
|
I feel like most democrat pushback against impeachment comes from the misguided idea that they don't want to risk weakening government offices when they're in power, which ends up meaning that the most criminal politician this country has seen in a long while gets off scot-free. An attempt to balance national discourse from only one side. In that vein, Some More News has an interesting message for Joe Biden. I feel like I, a person who has never had a German class, know more german than that Fox News guy. But he should really look down inside himself at how much pride he holds in such a little accomplishment and find some new avenue to better himself. Which he never will because that's against the point of conservatism.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2019 17:42
|
|
|
Being FN the only german he learned pertains to the camps
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2019 19:47
|
|
He's proud of only two years of german??? I took all three my school offered 
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2019 22:46
|
|
|
SlothfulCobra posted:I feel like most democrat pushback against impeachment comes from the misguided idea that they don't want to risk weakening government offices when they're in power, which ends up meaning that the most criminal politician this country has seen in a long while gets off scot-free. An attempt to balance national discourse from only one side. In that vein, Some More News has an interesting message for Joe Biden. Yeah the absolute worst possible thing to do is take impeachment off the table, because it sends the message to Trumpski that he's above the law and can do anything he wants without repercussions. They at least need to hang the threat of it over him, but ideally stretch it out at long as possible so it's a constant reminder to the electorate that this guy is a criminal who is under multiple investigations for misconduct. The most charitable explanation for all the slow-walking is that Pelosi wants to get the timing right, knowing that impeachment proceedings (especially the accompanying legal challenges) will take time but if they end too soon they'll then get overshadowed by Trumpler's other various scandals and controversies. Ideally they'd need to start in September after Congress reconvenes and then stretch as close to the 2020 election as possible. If they voted to impeach now, by contrast, and then sent it to the Senate where the trial would most likely not result in a conviction, it would be over with more than a year to go before the election. It's one thing for impeachment to not result in a conviction, but it's another to be able to use the timing to your advantage by making sure everyone is aware of the criminality and the enabling by Congressional Recucklicans.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2019 00:53
|
|
|
Yeah, the only thing worse than not trying to impeach would be trying and failing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2019 03:32
|
|
|
I didn't even think about that but you're right; I've always been under the presumption that the Democrats have the seats in the House to impeach and would do so when it's time to vote, but with as poorly as this has been handled thus far (by Pelosi, largely, unless she really does have some master plan that will all work out in the end) I guess it could allow the caucus to become so demoralized that it fails. That's why, even though the timing is important as I wrote, Pelosi has been making the mistakes of not taking advantage of the situations when they are advantageous: in particular when the Muller report was released, and when Mueller himself gave his "CANNOT EXONERATE" press conference. Those events came and went with hardly a peep from Pelosi in particular (aside from "he's not worth it" which is apparently a huge burn to tell a criminal you're not going to punish him for his myriad, very public crimes.) Instead, Justin loving Amash is the loudest voice for impeachment and meanwhile Pelosi's apparently been trying to come up with excuses not to impeach.... 
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2019 07:44
|
|
|
Atomizer posted:I didn't even think about that but you're right; I've always been under the presumption that the Democrats have the seats in the House to impeach and would do so when it's time to vote, but with as poorly as this has been handled thus far (by Pelosi, largely, unless she really does have some master plan that will all work out in the end) I guess it could allow the caucus to become so demoralized that it fails. I believe that the Democrats do have the votes to impeach in the House, but it's the Senate that does the actual trial. You'd need 67 senators to vote to convict, and seeing as how the Democrats don't have even a simple majority in the Senate, and adding to that the fact that any Republican voting to convict would be committing career suicide, just how exactly does anyone think this could possibly succeed? Seriously, I'm asking, and not just one person. I see a lot of people bitching and moaning about how the Democrats are being weak by not impeaching now, and a level of dissatisfaction at how some like Pelosi are explaining why it'd be a bad idea. But none of you have proposed a way to get the Republican-controlled Senate to vote to remove the president from office when a large number of those senators' supporters would all but certainly vote them out of office at the next opportunity. If I didn't know better, I'd say that some of you don't know how impeachment works. And that'd be a little ironic, since we're talking about this in a thread about a show whose recent episode went to great lengths to explain how impeachment works, and the fact that a two-thirds majority vote to convict was required in the GOP-controlled Senate was presented front-and-center. (And, it's also not exactly top secret information.) quote:Instead, Justin loving Amash is the loudest voice for impeachment... Is he, though? Or is he just notable because he's a Republican who's saying that?
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2019 13:06
|
|
|
The loudest voice for impeachment is the homeless guy who panhandles near the freeway onramp by my house. Dude just screaming at the top of his lungs every time I drive by.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2019 13:34
|
|
|
I think the idea is to impeach because there's enough information to warrant it. There's also that whole upholding the constitution thing. Complaining that republicans will just ignore laws so you might as well do nothing is definitely in the democratic wheelhouse, but I'd prefer if they at least tried to do their jobs.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2019 13:50
|
|
|
On the other hand, politics are a reality, and the fallout of being able to actually say 'They tried to impeach the President, but did not succeed' would be real. Plea bargaining, selective prosecution, strategic scheduling, all of that is a real thing. Maybe they're just waiting until a bit later in the election cycle, then they'll start the process so that it's hanging over his head. Maybe they're waiting to see if they can get more seats in the Senate. On the other hand, it's a truism that any organization eventually spontaneously generates the organizational rule 'maintain the existence of the organization,' and that rule eventually becomes the primary rule. Maybe Pelosi is maintaining the status quo at the expense of doing the needful, but difficult and troublesome, thing. Who knows? Now, here's an important question. There are allegations of shenanigans during the 2016 campaign. There are allegations of shenanigans during Trump's presidency. While Trump is president, he cannot be charged. After he stops being president, presumably he has some form of qualified immunity for things done during his presidency. But what about the things during the campaign? If he loses the next election, or after he's served out his second term, can he be arrested the moment he steps out of the White House gate and charged with campaign hijinks?
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2019 14:49
|
|
|
Atomizer posted:Yeah the absolute worst possible thing to do is take impeachment off the table, because it sends the message to Trumpski that he's above the law and can do anything he wants without repercussions. They at least need to hang the threat of it over him, but ideally stretch it out at long as possible so it's a constant reminder to the electorate that this guy is a criminal who is under multiple investigations for misconduct. I can't remember where I read it, but I saw an article saying that Pelosi was deliberately slow-playing impeachment in order to hold the vote sometime in mid- to late-2020 in order to a) lock down Trump during campaign season, keeping him in Washington for Congressional hearings instead of traveling around for his re-election campaign, and b) to minimize the amount of time Trump will be able to hang his red hat on  Total Exoneration, Not Guilty by a party-line Senate vote.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2019 15:11
|
|
|
Outside of the obvious advantages of not having him as president, setting a warning and precedent for future generations, beginning the long process of dismantling the kleptocracy, and whatnot, I also just don't want him running around as a free man after a long career of criminal action.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2019 15:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 16:06 |
|
|
But that all assumes a success that is almost guaranteed to not happen.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2019 15:48
|
|
