The guy who killed Hitler is Hitler you very dumb person.

What action are you taking about? Shooting a guy in the head? What problem does that exactly solve? He didn’t even shoot an oligarch, he shot an executive.

Saying “insurance should be illegal” is very near the top of the list of stupidest things that one can say.

You also need to work more on your radical proportionality idea.

I believe in radical proportionality, thus what you give is what you deserve to receive back, exactly, no more and no less (if you give someone five punches in the face with a given force, you deserve exactly five punches in the face with an amount of force proportional to your resistance).

I don’t know what you even mean by “proportional to your resistance” and how you quantify punch force and resistance, but if it’s exactly no more and no less than what you got, how is it also proportional to something else? Like I can’t eat exactly 2 pounds of ice cream, proportional to my belly circumference. It’s either one or the other.

Killing somebody is a pretty intense act, I imagine. A sane person doesn’t take another’s life in cold blood. What LM did is not a sane thing to do, regardless of what one thinks about the victim and the victims’ personal responsibility in other people’s suffering. Because it is not a sane thing to do, it’s futile debating its rationale.

I also don’t think that this murder should get special treatment on some utilitarian grounds, such as because it’s a heroic act that saved the lives of millions. I don’t think there is any concrete benefit of the murder on any specific healthcare, welfare, or health equity issue. Where are the masses who got their health back thanks to LM?

So what are you exactly celebrating? What would the statues commemorate? A poor insane man, killing a company executive, replaceable as a professional in the organization, and irreplaceable as a person in his family. Pure insanity and suffering, with no benefit, no winners. It’s a fucking sad and tragic story. It’s a powerful story undeniably, that’s why people follow it, but there is nothing to celebrate about it.

Fuck, the fact that this hateful, stupid, and barbaric comment sits here with 19 upvotes and zero downvotes kind of shatters my illusions about what kind of people I am interacting with here. Enough scrolling for me.

Hydrogen doesn’t just spontaneously bind to oxygen, so they aren’t the most willing chemical partners.

Somebody go tell the Hindenburg!

No, it’s unlikely that a cause follows it’s effects in time. Usually we think a cause happens first and then an effect follows.

I go to work for money (in the job I chose), and I get money, i call that a fair deal. If I was owned by someone, was forced to work, and would not get paid in return, I would be a slave. I mean what do you think it should be like? I don’t go to work and I get paid anyways? Who makes the shit I buy with the money then?

Would make more sense if post was talking about slavery, not labor. Labor is compensated.

She died in kidney failure and thrombotic microangiopathy, not an allergic reaction. They did test for antibodies against the virus. The injection was directly into the cerebrospinal fluid, not exactly the same exposure you get with a skin allergy test.

Wtf. If she died from the dna editing, doing the test you mention wouldn’t have prevented it. If she died from the formulation, she would have died from the test you talk about. I don’t see a scenario where a test with a control virus makes a difference.

Neither of those things is what the patient received. Do you mean they should test the vector without the payload on the patient? If the adverse reaction is to the vector, the patient would then experience the negative effects without a chance of getting any benefits. So why not give the real thing then? If you mean a control vector should be tested on healthy volunteers, idk, maybe, but it’s hard to come up with a relevant control that certainly doesn’t do anything to dna.

How? I mean the way every drug for example is tested for safety, they give it to people (healthy volunteers) in escalating doses, and watch them for adverse effects.
Rarely, it happens that a drug that was expected to be safe based on animal testing turns out to be dangerous in humans, and healthy volunteers die. It’s a tragedy, it happens rarely, but it happens, and safety trials are still the best way to start the process of clinical trials for new drugs. For some treatments, such as gene therapy, it’s not ethical to ask a volunteer to just try it to see if it’s safe. So they look for sick people, who are consenting to risking a new treatment with unproven safety, because their other choice is to not be treated.
This is how it’s always done. I wonder what you mean when you say the treatment should be tested for safety before giving it to patients.

Edit: this was a personalized experimental treatment developed specifically for this girl, on the parents’ initiative. The clinical team did test for antibodies against the virus before injecting the AAV into the csf. Lots of shady and wrong things on the research side, I’m not protecting them, just disagreeing with the previous comment that this tragedy would have been prevented by a simple test.

I read this book called tenure hacks:

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/24945544

It’s a good one, useful advice for junior faculty. Makes a compelling argument, similar to the article, that the requirement of good and improving student evaluations for promotion (that is, survival) means that the professor needs to give high grades- students won’t give a good evaluation if they are graded by a hardass.

Specifically, he recommends giving As at the end of the course when evaluations are due, and have any more stict assessments (if necessary) in writing, in the midterms.

It’s backwards that no life outcome of the students is a performance metric of the teacher, except the evaluation that the student submits after they receive their grade.

Thats’s comparable to a single strand of spaghetti holding up about 3,300 one-pound bags of sugar

Dear lord I really needed that to be brought down to my level. If they just say 3300 pounds, I have no idea how heavy that is.

I liked the phrasing of other headlines that reported this as “commercialization” being correlated with harms (because “legalization” doesn’t mean that to most people who read this).

I don’t have a tenure committee and nobody cares what I research as long as I publish and get grants. Ymmv. Edit: also, the comic skips postdoc, which is probably the most care free career stage (you can pretty much do whatever the fuck you want as long as you manage to impress your supervisor every now and then with original stuff and follow through to turn them into papers).

Excellent heron indeed.

You will get very different responses from Denmark, Albania, Switzerland and Belarus. Ancient greek democracy would look bad today with slavery and no women’s rights.

I mean, that’s a video of a dude in a costume, did someone didn’t know that? In a way it’s amusing how a shitty prank like this can live in the collective consciousness for 5 decades.

What a crap headline. Of course neither the US government nor or the fed nor the treasury is insolvent. The national debt is a large number, has been for a long time, and can be an even bigger number forever. Has nothing to do with insolvency. The fed will always be able to conjure money out of thin air so there can’t even exist a situation in which the government is insolvent. Whether the world economy will forever cherish the dollars they print as a reserve currency is a different question (no it won’t ), and something that deserves scrutiny and public attention. But stupid fearmongering articles like this don’t add anything of value to that discussion.