Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Post
  • Reply
Kagrenak
Sep 8, 2010

Kalman posted:

Which is not, generally speaking, a problem if you have adequate medical care. Which she does.

T1D still reduces life expectancy by as much as a decade in Finland and Sweden, and even people with the lowest measurable risk factors (A1C, smoking status, eGFR, BMI) still see a notable reduction of life expectancy. Even T1D that is generally well managed over time is hard on the organs.

https://www.diabetesresearchclinicalpractice.com/article/S0168-8227(23)00055-4/fulltext

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00125-021-05503-6

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Kagrenak
Sep 8, 2010

Kalman posted:

That ignores current age (and honestly doesn't say much about how controlled/quality of care).

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2088852 is more relevant, I think. For a woman of age 70 with T1d, remaining life expectancy is 12.8 years; for a woman of age 70 without diabetes, it's 15.5 years. It's not really that big a difference if you've made it that far.

(Also worth noting that this came up during her nomination - https://www.politico.com/story/2009/07/wh-still-mum-on-sotomayor-diabetes-024778 - and "doctors said Drexler’s report that Sotomayor lacks any evidence of eye, kidney, nerve, or heart problems is remarkable and indicates she can expect greater longevity than the typical diabetic.")

My bad, I actually missed the most relevant figure in my first reference (Figure 4) which directly supports your point here, showing a convergence as age increases. That'll teach me to skim articles and phone post about health stuff I'm not actually an expert in.

Kagrenak
Sep 8, 2010

Kloaked00 posted:

Why would a person ever find themselves wanting to defend the litch known as Mitch Mcconnel?

Kavanaugh and ACB were absolutely stolen seats

How were Kav and Barrett stolen seats? Or is this just a novel (to me) relitigation of 2016 where McConnell's loving of the SCOTUS pick somehow cost Hillary the election?

I also don't know why MPF is watering down what McConnell did though as it was a pretty big deal at the time and also retrospectively.

Kagrenak
Sep 8, 2010

Rogue AI Goddess posted:

The headline is misleading, but I guess "Public officials can't be held liable for blocking critics on social media unless they loudly shout "I AM THE STATE!" when they do it" wouldn't get as many clicks.

From my reading the new test isn't like the bribery one where you have to prove something like this during the act but it's more the overall appearance of the account. For example the @realDonaldTrump account clearly would've met this test and he can't be blocking critics on it. However my friend who is a city councilor but only mentions it on his personal account's bio with a link to his professional account can block whoever he wants on his personal account as it clearly is delineated.

Basically:

Lemniscate Blue posted:

"Keep personal poo poo off your professional page and vice versa" now official policy.

Actually seems like the real reading of the new test. At least if you want to retain the ability to block people.

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply