pfife

good stuff, this all resounds with me pretty well. I then wonder... ok, what about bills that congresspeople actually didn't author - like a lobbyist group authored it?

Gop cares about babies 28million. Not billion

Just listening to cspan and Schumer said something about how he authored the Brady Bill....which got me wondering... Do originalist justices ever just actually.... ask congresspersons what they meant if they're still alive? I googled quickly and apparently it's very rare for the House to file an amicus brief.

Yes! I wasn't in medicine, but they taught us about how important it was to be able to replicate results but the incentive structure doesn't reward replicating results.

The reason I asked this is because it is in the title of the journal article being discussed.

Oh that sounds kinda rad.....

Samsung definitely adds to the Android operating system. Many things that are duplicative between Samsung and Android. Walt used to rant on here about how Samsung did that Your calculus is my calculus with the dudes in Cupertino. The other part is that you can't unroot the phone which drastically reduces resale value in my past experience. If it's been rooted it categorically consider vulnerable by many folks.

I have a super high level of skepticism of academic peer review as well. Mainly because well that was work my advisor delegated... to his students such as me....

thanks, can't polish a turd

serious question: who here knows what a trial sequential analysis is, and would be able to spot methodological bullshit in it while reading about it in an article where that method is employed? I do data analysis for a living and I have no idea what that is let alone know if it was employed correctly/non-nefariously

re apple vs iphone for techiness, I offer the hammer of logic android = open source ios = not open source where you going if you're a nerd that wants to kneecap your phones OS?

I'm actually considering going back to an iphone after 10 years with Samsung phones. For me the issue has nothing to do with being a non-tech boomer (I'm a data scientist). For me it's all about Facebook. Multiple samsung phones I've had recently, including my current one, do not allow me to uninstall facebook, it only allows me to "disable" facebook. Meanwhile apple is in a huge battle with facebook and I love them for it There are other places to go for a facebook-less android, but I'm thinking I'm just ready for a change. There have been some apple-only apps I've really wanted to get as well for collaborative purposes. There are probably ways to root out facebook from the samsung os.... hmmmmm......

unless you're a buyer? fwiw my android screen is way way swanker than that, that dashboard appears like it's from 2010.

So for the intentional failure let the legislature decide plan to work, it would need to be machines with no paper ballots that can be hand counted.

I agree with Lee that we need to consume as much as we can and decide from there but it also seems like it's freaking impossible if you scale it out to every important decision you make. That's not even addressing the notion that for most laypeople, they wouldn't have any idea what most journal articles are saying. I had to read journal articles multiple times to get the full gist.... in the field I was pursuing a grad degree in. Oh and even though taxpayers fund a shitload of research in journals, journals are absurdly expensive. Rough go of it to be fully informed.

That one is a meta analysis specifically according to the title, which is a study of studies, not an independent study on its own. Meta analysis tries to synthesize "all" of the studies into a conclusion.....what Lee said we need to do. And unfortunately that's not super trustworthy either. G2s link said they were accused of excluding inconvenient data, so did they jut leave out studies they didn't like?

I had a lot of hopes for Mueller but I was fooled or foolish. Idk why I thought Republicans appointed by the trump admin would faithfully investigate Trump. At least this is adversarial.

Can't they count them by hand if they don't scan?

ivermectine really does kill parasitic worms, right? I mean, it literally "de-worms" the worm's host?

Tbf one of the employees may have had a vape pen with devils lettuce ALLEGEDLY

love the Black Crowes too! Shake your Money Maker has so many good tunes on it.

sorry, for discussion sake, assume the hate crimes state of mind was there and provable in the scenario when the nazi spray painted the swastika. Also assume the perp was not looking at life w/o parole already. What is the issue with tacking on more hate crimes punishment in that scenario?

I don't know. I'm assuming you're conceding my points since you literally just deleted them from the quote and didn't address them.

What about the case of the nazi who spray paints a swastika on a building at EMU? Nothing you said about the hate specification being pointless because of "fully punishable" would apply to that scenario. That guy might get some community service or something for vandalism but clearly not unable to punish more. Furthermore, why should this be treated as mere vandalism when it was clearly more than that? Because in a completely different case the person was already sentenced to 800 years? Because in a completely different case it was too hard to prove? Isn't charging w/ crimes that are provable, and not overcharging, exactly what a prosecutor is supposed to do? Maybe I'm misunderstanding - are you merely against the hate crime stuff in the Buffalo case, or in all cases? Many of your arguments seem to be based on the situation where the nazi is already pretty much going to be maxed out on punishment but that's not the only situation where hate crimes legislation applies, right? Instructional value/make a statement were your words not mine. I said laws reflect what we tolerate as a culture per Durkheim. I did say it "tells" people that we as a culture do not tolerate, and many laws clearly do that. I'm not sure exactly what you mean by an argument that seems to be that laws don't instruct the citizenry on what is tolerated - they clearly do that.

Likewise, it wasn't hard to see that this nazi bitch was doing a hate crime. You already conceded that - you said the evidence of it was in spades. But in one situation you're all good with it, in the other you're not. Don't really get it. You seem to be differentiating on "hard to prove" but that's not a differentiating factor in the comparison cases.