|
e:fb
|
#
?
May 10, 2023 20:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 15:13 |
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:Yes pancreatic is a death sentence for most people and it kills very fast My grandfather was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer back when I was 3, and died a month later. It's amazing to think that we may actually on the cusp of seeing a legitimate, no-kidding cure for cancer.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2023 20:23
|
|
|
BonoMan posted:yeah that's ok don't explain what any of that is or anything It's basically that the results are too limited and early to be remotely conclusive, but they're promising. For reference, here's the article itself. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-023-06063-y This sort of "a study says" article, especially about something in one of the giant imprints like Nature, also needs to be taken with a block of salt because they're often very close to press releases for the researcher institution or company.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2023 20:28
|
|
|
BonoMan posted:yeah that's ok don't explain what any of that is or anything Short version of what he said: Study was small and test candidates were also receiving other treatments during the study, so they can't 100% say it was the vaccines by themselves and there is a chance it is vaccines + other treatment combined that worked. Results are very promising, but limited. It is basically a proof of concept that it can be done. Hopefully, a larger phase two study will confirm the results.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2023 20:31
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:No, you asked "Are the claims made in the original article, correct though?" which they aren't, which I documented. Except the one specific example I cited, which was true, which you documented, while also denying it was true. So, uh, sorry, but in terms of trustworthiness you're not looking much better than they are at this point, since you've very clearly been trying to mislead me. Discendo Vox posted:The regulation is to prevent schools (or, really, the contractors providing reimbursed meals) from substituting things that don't hit the nutrition targets for milk and that are thereby cheaper. The regulations already specifically lists nutritional requirements, though, and then also specifically disallow schools from meeting those nutritional requirements in a general way that doesn't involve milk or in any way that might impact the sale of milk. So your explanation doesn't make any sense, here, since even if you remove all the bits that require milk you'd still be required to hit the nutrition targets. Are you intentionally trying to talk circles about the actual problem here by repeatedly denying it's existence even though you literally linked to it, or are you expecting handwaving it away as "well of course its a 'product of conflict of interest and a checkoff organization' but that doesn't matter" to be convincing? Discendo Vox posted:For the fourth loving time, the people lying to you about their motives are also lying about their goals. The explicit purpose of the suit is to remove the regulation that establishes the relevant nutrition requirements. If they were interested in just competing with milk in the space, they'd have to build out infrastructure and fortify their product to equivalence while hitting the same caloric targets. The plant-based foods industry groups may also pursue that simultaneously, but as a VC-based insurgent industry their preferred approach is to try to get rid of the relevant regulations. Can you please demonstrate how you know that is the "explicit purpose of the suit"? The regulations in place, which you linked, make it clear that building out the infrastructure and fortifying their product would not have been sufficient to compete in the space. Maybe that is their goal, and if so that sounds like it could be bad, although... couldn't they just update the regulations in general to require that nutritional stuff? Is there a real risk they somehow argue the USDA can't have nutritional requirements somehow? From what I read, that outcome doesn't actually seem possible, but maybe I'm wrong. And I don't see any reason to believe that is their goal! It might be, but the fact that you hate them isn't really evidence. (honestly, a "fortified drink" requirement seems pretty bullshit anyway, why the gently caress does a core nutritional component have to be liquid and in a form plenty of kids won't actually consume? Why aren't the nutritional requirements part of the meal as a whole? It doesn't make much sense to me) (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST) GlyphGryph fucked around with this message at 20:36 on May 10, 2023 |
|
#
?
May 10, 2023 20:32
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:Short version of what he said: Yeah. Progression-free survival is how long your patients survive without their disease progressing/reoccurring (also called relapse-free survival but there's nuance). Median PFS is when 50% of your parents have disease progression/relapse. FU= followup . Sorry, I'm tired and I forget what's jargon or not
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2023 20:33
|
|
|
Mike Pence says he doesn't think voters will care about Trump being declared a sexual assaulter in a court of law. He also says he has his doubts that it is true because he never personally witnessed Donald Trump sexually assault a woman when he was the Vice President.  https://twitter.com/DashaBurns/status/1656114233862508546 quote:Former Vice President Mike Pence subtly defended former President Donald Trump in an interview Tuesday, hours after a jury found Trump liable for sexual abuse and defamation.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2023 20:44
|
|
|
This is all important because a lot of pancreatic cancer being "successfully treated" basically means "we retarded the carcinomic spread enough that they didn't kill the patient for a few years" as I understand it Relapse free recovery isn't pushing back the clock like that, it's removing it. Without surgery, that you can't really do on the pancreas anyway because it's a frail softie held together with prayers
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2023 20:51
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:Mike Pence says he doesn't think voters will care about Trump being declared a sexual assaulter in a court of law. He's probably correct, for Republican primary voters.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2023 20:58
|
|
|
Pence's strategy of trying to win the GOP nomination by saying how great Trump is and never trying to differentiate himself from him in any way whatsoever and glossing over Trump's many flaws which he could ostensibly capitalize on sure is a bold one
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2023 20:59
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:He's probably correct, for Republican primary voters. He's literally bragged on camera about sexual assault. It probably helps him.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2023 21:00
|
|
|
Study on the unequal racial impact of gun violence in Chicago and New Orleans with some astonishing results: - The study considered data from 1995 to 2021. - 56% of black residents had witnessed someone else being shot by age 40. - 7% of black residents were shot at least once in their life by age 40. - Only 3.1% of white people had been directly exposed to gun violence. Keep in mind the study was only of residents in Chicago and New Orleans - which are two of the absolute worst places for gun violence - so, these are not reflective of nationwide statistics. But, still astonishingly large racial differences and shocking statistics in those areas. Roughly 1 out of every 14 black residents in Chicago and New Orleans will be shot at some point by age 40. https://twitter.com/CNN/status/1656132048250126336
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2023 21:01
|
|
|
That early cancer data is astonishing, I hope it bears out. Is there any reason that most or all cancers wouldn't be able to be addressed by mRNA therapies? Also, why do they call it a vaccine?
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2023 21:02
|
|
|
zoux posted:That early cancer data is astonishing, I hope it bears out. Is there any reason that most or all cancers wouldn't be able to be addressed by mRNA therapies? Also, why do they call it a vaccine? I don't think anyone knows the answer to the first question for sure. In theory, if they can produce an immune response that only targets cancerous cells, then it should be theoretically possible for it to work on other types of cancer/tumors. They call it a vaccine because (when successful) it stops cancer growth and fully inoculates you against further cancer growth for some period of time (they don't know exactly how long, but none of the subjects relapsed at all during the entire study for this vaccine) without radiation or surgically removing the tumors. The vaccine triggers a natural immune response that targets the specific cells, just like other vaccines trigger immune responses that target specific viruses.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2023 21:07
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:Except the one specific example I cited, which was true, which you documented, while also denying it was true. So, uh, sorry, but in terms of trustworthiness you're not looking much better than they are at this point, since you've very clearly been trying to mislead me. For the fifth time, the lawsuit is to remove the regulation with the nutrition targets. GlyphGryph posted:Are you intentionally trying to talk circles about the actual problem here by repeatedly denying it's existence even though you literally linked to it, or are you expecting handwaving it away as "well of course its a 'product of conflict of interest and a checkoff organization' but that doesn't matter" to be convincing? You are describing why they are doing it. I linked their lawsuit, you can see what regulations they are trying to have struck. GlyphGryph posted:Maybe that is their goal, and if so that sounds like it could be bad, That is their goal. It is bad. GlyphGryph posted:although... couldn't they just update the regulations in general to require that nutritional stuff? Is there a real risk they somehow argue the USDA can't have nutritional requirements somehow? From what I read, that outcome doesn't actually seem possible, but maybe I'm wrong. And I don't see any reason to believe that is their goal! It might be, but the fact that you hate them isn't really evidence. Fortification of foods has been a thing for a hundred years and is one of the greatest achievements of nutrition science. Milk is already fortified, particularly non-whole milk. Nutrition requirements are already part of the meal regulation. There are already federal dietary guidelines. There is already a non-milk substitution allowed in the regulation. In addition to setting food standards the USDA also uses these requirements to stabilize the food supply by establishing demand for commodities. This is where their structural conflict of interest comes in. Nutrient content in school meals, though, is pretty much the very least of the reasons to object to USDA activity in these areas. Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 21:11 on May 10, 2023 |
|
#
?
May 10, 2023 21:09
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:The point of the entire sequence of events was to try to get the school to punish her so that they could sue. They pulled the event because they didn't think she would be punished. Every last piece of communication "from the student" will have been written with at least review by a PCRM attorney to try to get the school to say something they could paint as actionable. I suspect, because, again, these are shitbags, that the citation of the correspondence isn't very accurate either, and that there wasn't compelled speech; note this quote from an email putatively from the district to the defendant, emphases mine: I don't know why you're implying that she wouldn't have to be the one handing out the pro-dairy materials. You are also characterizing the event in a way that is overly negative to the plaintiff and I would argue you should also not read it uncharitably. quote:On March 24, 2023, Marielle sent another email to Defendant Steinorth, reiterating that if distributing “pro-milk literature information is mandatory,” the Awareness Club would not hold the event. She repeated her request that Defendant Steinorth make a decision as soon as possible, as the day of action was drawing near and she needed sufficient time to organize the event. The regulation is bad because it is compelling pro-dairy speech, the plantiffs clearly want to get rid of the regulation and they don't hide that. But the fact is that the regulation is bad because it does lead to a limit to free speech.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2023 21:11
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:DHS is ending Title 42 as soon as the court order allows them (11:59 on Thursday) and has decided that there is no way for them to track every single person claiming asylum, so they are just going to stop tracking them and allow them into the country without a court date. The other half of this is the Biden admin is replacing it with a different, worse policy which: - Dramatically raises the bar for an asylum claim - Requires asylum seekers first claim refugee status in another country and fail to achieve it (unless you use CBPs app) - Attaches criminal penalties and prison time for attempting to re-enter in the next five years after an asylum denial - Violates international treaties signed by the US in 1980. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/us-asylum-restriction-title-42-expires-border-deportations/ Doctor Yiff fucked around with this message at 21:17 on May 10, 2023 |
|
#
?
May 10, 2023 21:12
|
|
|
zoux posted:why do they call it a vaccine? Because the treatment is based on invoking an immune response against antigens found in pancreatic cancer. Most traditional oncology treatments are aimed at directly destroying or removing cancer tissue (radiation or surgery) or targeting cell division like chemo. Since one of the hallmarks of most cancers is out of control, unregulated cell division leading to rapid growth, tissue invasion, metastasis etc., targeting tissues that rapidly divide is somewhat selective for cancer but it has effects upon the parts of your body that grown and divide more rapidly than other parts like your digestive tract, hair etc. So the holy grail of cancer treatment is something that specifically targets only the cancer tissue. If your immune system can be stimulated or programmed to target the cancer tissue so much the better, it can be an ongoing response that keeps any recurrence under control. This can be problematic since cancers originate usually from your own cells which is why they are often not effectively eliminated through immunity Zwabu fucked around with this message at 21:18 on May 10, 2023 |
|
#
?
May 10, 2023 21:12
|
|
|
gurragadon posted:I don't know why you're implying that she wouldn't have to be the one handing out the pro-dairy materials. You are also characterizing the event in a way that is overly negative to the plaintiff and I would argue you should also not read it uncharitably. The bolded language is the plaintiff's unsupported assertion and I've already demonstrated why you should not believe the plaintiff when they are saying that. The plaintiff also doesn't establish that the school's action is even related to the regulation; only the plaintiff ever invokes the regulation. Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 21:18 on May 10, 2023 |
|
#
?
May 10, 2023 21:15
|
|
|
Zwabu posted:Because the treatment is based on invoking an immune response against antigens found in pancreatic cancer. Most traditional oncology treatments are aimed at directly destroying or removing cancer tissue (radiation or surgery) or targeting cell division like chemo. I guess I should've learned that vaccine != prophylactic from the last three years, but I still think "prevents infection/disease" when I hear it.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2023 21:18
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:The bolded language is the plaintiff's unsupported assertion and I've already demonstrated why you should not believe the plaintiff when they are saying that. The plaintiff also doesn't establish that the school's action is even related to the regulation; only the plaintiff ever invokes the regulation. Well can you support that the school was going to distribute it?
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2023 21:19
|
|
|
Doctor Yiff posted:The other half of this is the Biden admin is replacing it with a different, worse policy which: Yeah, that is true. Those are almost definitely going to court. The prevented from re-entering for 5 years thing is not new. But, the requiring refugees to either use an app or first claim refugee status in another country is the big thing that will be challenged. It is a lighter version of an existing policy that was already struck down in 2020.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2023 21:20
|
|
|
The vaccine angle from what I understand is neat because your immune system naturally knows how to kill cancer cells, it actually alarmingly does it on a day-to-day basis but it doesn't get them 100% of the time. Getting your immune system looking at the thing that it missed is a very elegant solution and would theoretically work for a longer time and have less side effects and be significantly less invasive.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2023 21:22
|
|
|
gurragadon posted:Well can you support that the school was going to distribute it? I did; the email the suit quotes about the subject is characterized as so: quote:On March 14, 2023, Defendant Steinorth emailed Marielle to update her that, after speaking with his District supervisor and the Cafeteria Branch, they had decided as follows: The quoted text is this: quote:You can have a table set up outside at lunch with her flyers on the pros and cons of drinking milk, but you should also have some literature for both sides of the debate. I am trying to get some from a LAUSD nutritionist so that burden does not fall only on you... . You should not disrupt or interrupt students from getting meals for the day. "You" in this quoted language is going to be defendant Steinforth (who's using masculine pronouns, conveniently for pulling this apart); "her" is the plaintiff, Marielle. This is describing what the school will set up, it's not describing Marielle having to provide pro-milk literature. The framing of the quote is intentionally trying to confuse Marielle with the school to present the "should" as applying to her. The plaintiffs follow up with the absolutely shameless quote:Defendant Steinorth added, “I don’t think [these restrictions are] too unreasonable.” To be clear for anyone following along who's not used to this sort of stuff, the material [in brackets] is the plaintiffs substituting language for Steinforth, nominally for clarity. The word "restrictions" is theirs. The only other language from the suit from Steinforth that speaks to how the school was approaching this is the final email to Marielle: quote:Marielle, I’m sorry. I was asked to make sure that those materials were available as well. I completely understand your point though. The restriction on speech, the compelled speech they're using as the basis for the suit, is that the school, at most, is going to set up a table and her flyers and the pro-milk materials will both be on it...or that there will be two tables. This doesn't get them the cause of action they wanted, so they pulled out and used the pullout to try to still run the case. This is what's evident even from their obviously very selective presentation of the communications. Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 21:45 on May 10, 2023 |
|
#
?
May 10, 2023 21:35
|
|
|
zoux posted:That early cancer data is astonishing, I hope it bears out. Is there any reason that most or all cancers wouldn't be able to be addressed by mRNA therapies? Also, why do they call it a vaccine? In the case that this happens to work extremely well for pancreatic cancer, the personalized nature of it presents immense logistical challenges. You need to identify the antigens that are specific to the tumor, identify optimal epitopes (the thing the antibodies will bind to), and generate a unique vaccine for each patient. It's a ton of work requiring a ton of resources and we're a long way from scaling that up. For other cancers, everything depends on the degree to which immunotherapy is effective. If there aren't tumor-specific antigens, this won't work. If the antigens on the cancer cells are particularly diverse, this won't work. If the cancer is generally good at evading immune responses by changing its microenvironment, this won't work. There are several trials in progress that are similar in principle for other cancers (not just mRNA vaccines, but also cell-based vaccines, that use different mechanisms for the same end).
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2023 21:41
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:I did; the email the suit quotes about the subject is characterized as so: I see where your coming from, I read it more as the school providing Marielle the literature and it was to be displayed on the same table where she would be handing out her flyers. Personally, I dont think she should be compelled to do even that because it goes directly against her intended message. Guess it will be more clear when they go over all the communications.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2023 22:02
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:For the fifth time, the lawsuit is to remove the regulation with the nutrition targets. For the fifth time, demonstrate that! Because I can't loving find it mate, as I've said. Discendo Vox posted:Milk is already fortified, particularly non-whole milk. Nutrition requirements are already part of the meal regulation. There are already federal dietary guidelines. There is already a non-milk substitution allowed in the regulation. This is a pointless discussion if you're going to continue to dodge around the bad stuff I've actually brought up and described, which is there clear as day in the linked regulations. Like, if what you just said is actually true, then all it does is reinforce why the milk bullshit isn't necessary. You realize that, right? Do you realize what the actual things is I see as bad is? I've explained it multiple times but you don't seem to be grasping it or even acknowledging it. Lets summarize where we are right now. I asked if thing I thought was bad was true. You first responded by saying other things were untrue, and then when I asked more directly you said that what I asked about was untrue... and then linked to evidence that it was in fact not just true but worse than I'd thought. You have, so far, refused to acknowledge or engage with that, instead constantly trying to redirect to other issues and now you're trying make it out like I'm arguing against nutrient content in school meals which is bullshit! I haven't done that at all. quote:Fortification of foods has been a thing for a hundred years and is one of the greatest achievements of nutrition science. GlyphGryph fucked around with this message at 22:32 on May 10, 2023 |
|
#
?
May 10, 2023 22:25
|
|
|
Eiba posted:So others have cited that hunter-gatherer societies definitely do not value infinite consumption, and that is a much more "normal" human baseline than our very unusual modern society. But I don't think even agriculture and state societies changed human nature that much overall. It feels like you're mixing up "economic growth" with "imperialistic expansionism" here. Conquest was certainly one way to grow the economy, but it was hardly the only way. I feel fairly safe in saying that pre-industrial societies generally did not want the society's total productivity to drop, because that productivity often dictated "how many people can we afford to feed here", and that was usually a little too close to "how many people currently live here" for people to be fully comfortable with it. I wouldn't be surprised if Chinese dynasties held a cultural narrative of decline from an idealized past. After all, much of Europe subscribed to similar cultural narratives for plenty of written history. Of course, the legacy of the classical era was something that Europeans looked up to since pretty much the moment the Western Roman Empire fell. But even before that, basically every era of known Roman history had writers who would write about how society was declining from an idealized better time, usually a few generations before the writer was born. Even as Roman power was rising to its peak, there were plenty of Romans penning articles about how the decadent urbanites were dragging society toward an inevitable collapse by disrespecting the customs of their ancestors. Even ancient Greek myth included suggestions that humanity had irrecoverably declined compared to previous periods of great prosperity. You cite Tokugawa Japan as an example of a society that didn't care about growth and wanted to "just chill". But the Tokugawa's rise to power was almost immediately preceded by failed attempts to conquer Korea; those disastrous foreign expeditions weakened the power of the Toyotomi clan and its closest allies, allowing the Tokugawa the opportunity to lead an uprising and seize power. Similarly, foreign trade had helped various warlords build up their power during the extensive period of civil war, and thus the restrictions on foreign trade were meant to limit the strength of the many warlords in feudal Japan. The focus was on building the strength of the state and the economy, since civil war tends to be bad for business and economic growth. Though even then, Japan still engaged in a bit of expansionism during the Tokugawa era, such as the conquest of Ryukyu. The cause for ending the Ming treasure voyages is somewhat less clear, but the influence of powerful wealthy figures who resented the government's monopoly on foreign trade has been cited as one potential contributing factor, and military pressure on the borders and the need to solidify the control of a new dynasty were also present in both that and in China's other major instances of foreign trade restrictions. I think you're focusing too much on "infinite growth" as a special unique thing that only capitalism has ever wanted. On an individual and group basis, people mostly want their own lives to improve. They want more stuff, or they want better stuff, or they want to pay less for the stuff they already have. That's growth. Mendrian posted:I think talking about 'greed' as a universally human concept is dangerous because we're going to see it through a uniquely capitalist, western perspective. It's probably silly say to older civilizations did not fall prey to similar problems but it is also somewhat naive to assume hierarchal capitalism simply evolves naturally in all societies because human nature - that's capitalism propaganda. Greed definitely existed in older civilizations, and wealthy people possessed disproportionate power in numerous pre-capitalism societies. Frankly, it's more difficult to create a society that has private property and unequal wealth but still manages to prevent wealthy people from holding disproportionate power.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2023 23:03
|
|
|
Mike Pence, a guy who famously does not believe in things that he has not seen
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2023 00:08
|
|
|
Failed Imagineer posted:Yeah. Copy, thanks! (and everyone else that posted) Super exciting news even tentatively.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2023 00:26
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:Mike Pence says he doesn't think voters will care about Trump being declared a sexual assaulter in a court of law. Why would he expect his voters to be more progressive on rapists in the Executive than Democrats?
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2023 00:33
|
|
|
TheDisreputableDog posted:Why would he expect his voters to be more progressive on rapists in the Executive than Democrats? He knows it's a desired feature, not a bug.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2023 00:51
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:The post you quoted was about individuals seeking to infinitely increase their status. You've conflated that with the earlier discussion about infinite growth into making this a claim very specifically about outward expansion of Sovereign states while ignoring there are other ways of growing wealth then conquest. My position is that there are a lot of situations where people wouldn't ask for infinite growth. Anomalously, our current economy is not one of those situations- anyone interacting with it needs infinite growth to avoid drowning, so it seems "natural" to us, but it is not natural or normal. The idea that growth is desired is very distinct from the idea that infinite growth is desired. Of course there was a period of growth of state power that lead to the state power I'm talking about. That's kind of trivially true. I think there are examples of that kind of growth just never happening, but I think uglycat already made a very good post about hunter gatherers in this context. I'm talking about two examples of states that acted in a way that prove that it is entirely conceivable that people with power might have concerns other than growing that power. Tokugawa Japan could easily have cleansed Hokkaido of the Ainu and built up more effective economic systems there, as they immediately did once they got the productivity bug from the West, but the Tokugawa did not pour everything into exploitation. Likewise, the Chinese Treasure Fleets were getting tons of resources in the form of tribute, and were reasonably profitable to China. In both cases it was decided that increasing productivity was not the most desirable course of action. Who exactly pays and who exactly profits was an issue- it might create a power base for new classes, who would have the resources to change other things and so on until things were different. And that was, by default, dangerous. My point is not that no one sought wealth or personal advancement before capitalism, just that it was very normal for other priorities to win out sometimes. The idea that "workers" gaining power would necessarily just want the same infinite growth that capitalists do is a profound lack of imagination and historical perspective. Main Paineframe posted:I think you're focusing too much on "infinite growth" as a special unique thing that only capitalism has ever wanted. On an individual and group basis, people mostly want their own lives to improve. They want more stuff, or they want better stuff, or they want to pay less for the stuff they already have. That's growth. Even if people want their lives to improve, it has (rightly) not been clear that "growth" will lead to improving their lives. One form of growth is killing your neighbors and taking their stuff- Roman style. Most of Rome's contemporaries did not try to attempt that growth because they didn't think it would improve their situation. Either it was too hard to conquer their neighbors or they liked their neighbors or whatever. You could get tribute flowing in from foreign lands, or send settlers to displace unsettled people on your frontier, but maybe you don't think that will actually improve your lot in life or the stability of your country or whatever you valued more- especially if you don't have this very abstract, inhuman notion of a rising tide lifting all ships. Not all growth is good for everyone. I think it would be pretty uncontroversial in this forum to say that it is not necessarily a good thing every time the economic line goes up. There are definitely times when "growth" is bad, or simply not in your interest. Humans can see that easily. Investors cannot. That's what's alien about our current adherence to eternal growth. There's no human input anymore. Monetize everything and ensure everything is fungible, and then all growth is good always- for the investor class at least. There's nothing to weigh against the need for the line to go up. That's not always how things worked, and that's all I was trying to point out. Replacing investors with workers would open the door to fundamentally different priorities, because right now other priorities are entirely off the table. To try and forestall some objections to this- I know there's a lot more complexity to our current economic system, to historical systems, and the rest. This is a very general attempt at justifying a very general principle- our modern assumptions are based on modern economic structures. There are a lot more possibilities out there, both in history and in a potential future.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2023 01:49
|
|
|
TheDisreputableDog posted:Why would he expect his voters to be more progressive on rapists in the Executive than Democrats? He shouldn't. It's probably more of a selling point to Trump voters.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2023 02:02
|
|
|
CNN has rightfully been getting buried for this, but we all know this was intentional. They are just chasing ratings and I imagine this won't be the last time they do something like this.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2023 03:32
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:CNN has rightfully been getting buried for this, but we all know this was intentional. They are just chasing ratings and I imagine this won't be the last time they do something like this. Didn't the new head of CNN say he wanted more balanced coverage? Re: we need more Republicans to spew their bullshit.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2023 04:03
|
|
|
Mooseontheloose posted:Didn't the new head of CNN say he wanted more balanced coverage? https://www.vox.com/platform/amp/2022/8/26/23322761/cnn-john-malone-david-zaslav-chris-licht-brian-stelter-fox-peter-kafka-column Like others have said, CNN’s owner wants to chase money by shifting rightward.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2023 04:14
|
|
|
Eric Cantonese posted:https://www.vox.com/platform/amp/2022/8/26/23322761/cnn-john-malone-david-zaslav-chris-licht-brian-stelter-fox-peter-kafka-column Has this actually ever worked for any company? I mean there's a reason Disney sides with the woke mob. That's where the money is. I mean I guess most people who actually watch TV News tend to be right wing but it's a pretty saturated market at this point and the demographic they're targeting calls them the Clinton News Network. So doesn't seem like a whole lot of audience share, particularly as the few centrists that still watch CNN switch over to MSNBC where they at least seem to be taking the threat of Fascism seriously and not trying to increase the share of the Nazi audience.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2023 04:52
|
|
|
If there was a way to meaningfully take Fox's audience then it might work, but it's not like cable news viewers are getting younger and no way is moving rightward going to capture that group, if there's even a way to do that.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2023 04:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 15:13 |
|
|
You know, what even is the point of cable news at a time when breaking news shows up on people’s phones and 30% of the footage on tv news is taken from phone recordings of things people were there for?
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2023 05:01
|
|
