- Road Hog [road vehicles + trams, it's from the same author as Iron Horse and FIRS],
- U&Bridges [like in the name, rail/road bridges],
- U&RaTT [road/tram tracks with speed limits],
- U&ReMM2 [rail tracks with speed limits],
- Av9.8 Aircraft Set [planes, etc.],
- CHIPS Station Set 2.0 [very nice station set which has stations with waiting cargo animations]
If you want some updates for graphics in default OpenGFX, then I suggest adding:
- OpenGFX+ Landscape [removes grid from the map, modifies snow line, enables snow in temperate climate],
- OpenGFX Trees [like in the name, replaces trees and adds trees at the roadside in the cities],
- Stolen Trees [yes, they were stolen at some point, adds very nice trees to the game]
- HEQS [heavy equipment road vehicles, is also good road vehicle set, I'm not sure if it works with all FIRS' cargo].
A few comments seem to be referring to situations where too much THC is ingested which is certainly becoming more common due to the availability of THC both with legalization of d9 and the legal gray area of d8
But this article is referring to a much different condition: cannabinoid hyperemesis syndrome[1]. CHS occurs in long term heavy users eg smoking every day for a year or more. This recent increase feels more like a result of the COVID lockdowns - it is not hard to imagine many occasional users of marijuana switching to every day use after getting stuck at home
I bought Tailwind UI has a mostly backend developer and I couldn't be more happier with it so far. It really saved a lot of my time in building my MVP, well worth the cost.
Although, I guess I don't know for sure until I start to test the product. But the development at least has been a blast.
I'd be willing to pay, but it's not clear what is included. For an initial look before paying, I downloaded a pirated copy. It only contains the components' html (and alpine, react, vue) snippets, with no extra documentation. If I were to pay for a license, would I get access to log into an account that has a full component browser with examples and extended documentation? If so, can all of that be downloaded as an offline copy, so that it will still be available to me if/when the Tailwind UI product/site is discontinued? Losing access to that important piece of the product would be unacceptable; I suppose I could curl a mirror of the authenticated portal if necessary.
The "simplest" button apparently contains the following ridiculous number of css classes, which is not the kind of css composition I'm a fan of. It may be the most flexible in terms of customization, but it's a nightmare to mentally parse and maintain. I would not want to manage a code base where nearly every html tag looks like this. :/
Not sure this will support the original commenters point, as these "threats" have a basis in reality and appear to be good causes unlike Trump's, but these are "threats" by Obama at least according to the journalists involved.
Edit: why the downvotes? I am showing that the Trump supporter above is full of shit, Obama's "threats" were for good causes
You might have avoided the downvotes if you had made it clear what your point was. As it reads without the edit, it sounds like you're arguing the opposite of what your edit says.
Trump supporter? I cannot wait for Trump to be gone. If I were a Trump supporter, I would refer to him as President or President Trump. More like person who is not triggered just by the mere mention of Trump.
I never even insinuated Obama's threats were not for good causes. Part of being a president is to execute laws and regulations which includes threats of action.
Since I have no doubt someone will take my "President" comment above out of context, I will not refer to a political figure by their former position title. To me, wishing/expecting to be referred by their former position is akin to using it as a title of nobility and expecting to be treated as nobility.
Yes:"The Healight technology employs proprietary methods of administering intermittent ultraviolet (UV) A light via a novel endotracheal medical device."
> I'm not fan of Trump, but the attacks on him over this and hydroxychloroquine are ridiculous.
Even without going into the absurdity of any of his specific claims, he should not be standing at a podium spitballing and speculating about potential treatments that he may or may not have heard about. Kind of the opposite of what is required from a leader during a crisis, and the impacts of doing so can actually be pretty devastating.
> impacts of doing so can actually be pretty devastating.
Source on this? I have heard about the couple that ate the aquarium chemicals, a bit of a stretch unless I missed the part where Trump mentioned aquarium chemicals
You need a source to acknowledge that a President's words have impact and that speaking ignorantly and off the cuff on medical topics can lead to misunderstanding and dangerous decision making by the general public?
There's a reason why Reckitt Benckiser Group quickly issued a statement after Trump's claims, imploring people not to consume "through injection, ingestion or any other route" any of their products.
Yeah, and, in my opinion, the reason why Reckitt Benckiser Group quickly issued a statement after Trump's claims is as much the media as Trump himself. The media had an opportunity to educate people on "proprietary methods of administering intermittent ultraviolet (UV) A light via a novel endotracheal medical device" to which Trump is referring and instead ran stories about Lysol. Would we even be talking about Lysol if they had led with Healight? I won't claim to know the answer to this question because I don't but it is worth considering that the answer is "no".
Edit: just to combat the obvious response, would we even be talking about Lysol if Trump had not made those comments? Obviously, no. Two wrongs don't make a right
Having watched the unedited press conference, there's zero evidence that he was talking about the Healight. If he were, they have had nearly 24 hours to clarify that he was referring to that. It's not the media's role to search out and bolster rational explanations for the President's seemingly irrational claims.
The Healight also offers no explanation for his "injecting disinfectant" claims, which were separate from the UV light claims. The term "disinfectant" among the public is most commonly used to indicate household disinfectant chemicals. So when the President muses about "injecting disinfectant", why would it be the media's role to then go and hunt for explanations that actually make sense from a medical perspective?
I would say that there is "little evidence" that he was talking about Healight because his sentences are barely coherent but it does appear to be that he is referring to "injecting" UV light to "disinfect" the lungs which is what Healight is doing when you get past the exact words that I quoted.
Yes, I believe it is the media's responsibility to be more intelligent than the President in this case, which honestly shouldn't be very hard. Time and time again they are lowering themselves to Trump's level presumably to soak up that sweet sweet ad revenue
You acknowledge that the President speaks in "barely coherent" sentences. And that he's not very intelligent.
That's the real problem, here. That's the real story.
If we view the media's role as nothing more than taking Trump's drivel and turning it into teachable moments or trying to find a positive spin on it, not only does it basically position the media as a PR arm of whomever the current administration is, by doing so it fails in its duty to inform the public about what is actually going on in the White House, and what the President is actually saying.
A key role of the fourth estate is to hold the President to account. That is incompatible with your view that they need to be a booster of the President in the name of "intelligence" or elevation of the dialogue.
Edit: I will also add that I see now that Trump is claiming that his talk yesterday of UV light and injecting disinfectants was "sarcasm".
I don't think you understand my argument. That's fine, I haven't been articulating it very well, let me give it another shot.
> That's the real problem, here. That's the real story.
Is it? Is Donald Trump's incorrect use of the word disinfectant the most important thing happening in the world right now?
> If we view the media's role as nothing more than taking Trump's drivel and turning it into teachable moments or trying to find a positive spin on it, not only does it basically position the media as a PR arm of whomever the current administration is, by doing so it fails in its duty to inform the public about what is actually going on in the White House, and what the President is actually saying.
I have a few points here:
1. I don't think that the media needs to put a "positive spin". As I mentioned, the preferable response in my opinion is something along the lines of "Trump is wrong, but here is whats right" and then quickly move on. Instead, they put a negative spin on things, connecting Trump's words to Lysol because it better matched their incentives, which went viral and made this the biggest news story of the week. I'm sure some Trump supporter is going to inject Lysol because that's now what Trump said even though its not really what he said
2. The media IS in many ways a PR arm of whomever the current administration is. The government has a lot of control over what the media says as do many other powerful/wealthy individuals/organizations in this country. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent
3. By criticizing Trump so often, the media leads many to believe that #2 is not the truth. But, the vast majority of criticism of the current administration is trivial in nature. Trump incorrectly using the word "disinfectant" is not the most important thing happening in the country this week. Not even close.
4. As a result of #3, the Trump administration has basically free rein to do any of the real evil things that the US government does on a regular basis without fear of scrutiny. The media is too busy talking about "disinfectant" to talk about any real issues. And the general public (edit: Democrats) trusts that the media is holding the Trump administration to a high standard as a result of #3. In terms of "real evil things", I think the media should be investigating the current bailouts and injection of liquidity in financial markets. But, the persons/organizations getting rich off that (at the tax payers expense), are the same powerful persons/organizations that have control over the media (again, see Chomsky).
All in all, I see the focus on this disinfectant as one of a long series of smoke screens to give the appearance of keeping the White House in check. In reality, they are just polluting our brains with all this talk about Lysol. Instead, they should have just said, maybe Trump is talking about this UV light therapy, and then moved on to something more important, instead of creating this whole hullabaloo about Lysol that really is not important in the grand scheme of things.
This is not a new pattern - this has been happening since Trump took office. The media uproar about what dumb things Trump said each week isn't real scrutiny.
Another way to look at it is that Trump intentionally says stupid things often to keep the media pre-occupied with that and distracted from the real things his administration is doing. In other words, he is "controlling the news cycle". I think this is a valid interpretation of the events although I don't give Trump that much credit and I think we should be looking closer at the media because they're going to be relevant much longer than Trump will. But, if this strikes a chord with you at all, consider this question: perhaps the media should not be taking the bait? The sarcasm comment aligns better with this theory. He got what he wanted and can now backtrack on his statements
PS. I realize that the argument in this comment is far from my argument in previous comments. It took some time for more to develop my thoughts. I'll be more careful next time. I would apologize for wasting time but I think I already paid the price in terms of downvotes
PPS. Summarizing my argument one last time before I put a lid on this: it seems to me that this whole disinfectant debacle is a big waste of time and the media could be doing better by educating people on treatment options to keep them optimistic or investigating real bad shit that the Trump administration is doing to make this country a better place. Thanks for your time, I definitely learned a lot from this argument and appreciate your participation even if we don't see eye to eye on this issue.
The statement we are supposed to find the strongest plausible interpretation of is this one
So, supposing we hit the body with a tremendous - whether it's ultraviolet or just very powerful light and I think you said that hasn't been checked but you're going to test it. And then I said, supposing you brought the light inside of the body, which you can do either through the skin or in some other way. And I think you said you're going to test that too. Sounds interesting. And then I see the disinfectant where it knocks it out in a minute. One minute. And is there a way we can do something like that, by injection inside or almost a cleaning? Because you see it gets in the lungs and it does a tremendous number on the lungs, so it'd be interesting to check that'
I don't think anybody can plausibly claim this incoherent stream of verbiage is an attempt to raise ultraviolet irradiation of blood as a possibility, particularly not in the context of a discussion which instead focused on how sunlight weakens the virus and isopryl alcohol kills it within one minute. And especially not now the person who made that statement has walked it back and said it was 'sarcastic'
HN guidelines don't require HNers to abandon their critical faculties.
It's hard to defend Trump's words on this topic. He's not a medical expert and doesn't sound like one.
But, in my opinion, it would benefit people more if the media tried to educate instead of "hurr durr he wants you to inject Lysol". Sadly I am optimistic in thinking the media exists to educate rather than accumulate ad views...
We need to be pursuing all treatment options right now, even if the gut feeling is that they won't work. We're in a situation that we have never been in before (i.e. pandemic with modern medicine), it is not far-fetched to believe the solution is something that we never expected to work.
Perhaps you can elaborate on what you see as "the consequences" to help me understand your point of view? Personally, I didn't think that he was suggesting to inject Lysol until I read that in the main stream media. And when I looked into it myself, I found Healight, and I think this is something the media could have pointed me instead of their knee-jerk Lysol reaction
I explicitly agreed with your point a few posts ago:
> It's hard to defend Trump's words on this topic. He's not a medical expert and doesn't sound like one.
My point is, the media is fighting stupidity with stupidity with this whole Lysol thing. They could have used this as an opportunity to say, we know Trump sounds dumb, but let us teach you about what he is actually referring to
Sorry I'm a different guy. Should have kept out of it I suppose.
But yeah, its a game now, pointing out how (nearly) everything the guy says is dumb. Its not a game we should be playing; he should be sticking to broad goals and comforting the public. Like, you know, a leader. Instead of a regular schmuck way out of his depth who likes to hear himself talk.
No worries! I agree with mostly everything you have written. I just wish that the media used these opportunities to educate people on what Trump was actually talking about instead of getting obsessed with the specific words (namely "disinfectant" and "inject") that he used to describe it
Wouldn't the ability to refuse taking the test introduce bias? i.e. the 10% that do take it still may not be representative of the entire population. Likely better than the grocery store sample, but still not ideal
Yeah, that is still an issue. You can offer compensation to incentivize participation. And you can pre-select your sample (instead of random door-to-door) and require multiple follow ups with the selected persons to reduce nonresponse bias.
You can also do a separate phone survey in addition to surveying the test participants. Questions like "Do you think you have had COVID?" and "How many times per week do you leave the house?". If the responses for the test participants vary significantly from the phone survey participants, you can try and weight your data accordingly.
Sure, phone surveys for political purposes (presidential approval ratings etc.) have to deal with that all of the time. There are methods for estimating non-response impact. [0] One method of mitigating it that I've seen it to reach out again to non-responders. You then analyze their results to see how they differ from the baseline responders to estimate the non-responder population. If there's little/no difference, you can be fairly confident the risk of bias is low. It's called non-response follow up, and is a pretty common method.
There's also literature that suggests that you don't discard outlier values in the actual responders as they may help approximate the non-responder population, i.e., the non-outliers represent typical responders while outliers are more likely to represent non-responders [1]
Wow, downvoted for providing factual information on how researchers mitigate non-response bias. Didn't think there was anything controversial there. I'm willing to accept the additional downvoted for this comment though.
Not downvoted by me! Appreciate you sharing this information, it is helping me better understand how researchers mitigate non-response bias. Interesting stuff.
I have seen a few click-bait headlines stating that the "oversight was fired" but it is not exactly true. There is some politics going on about who is chair of the PRAC but the other ~20 members of the committee have not changed.
The procession of a dictator is more nuanced and complex than people realize. A totally typical tactic is to repeatedly fire anyone who will take up the role in a fashion that does not directly benefit said dictator. That anyone was fired from this duty without a clear explanation and justification is cause for alarm. It doesn't matter if there are 20 or 2000 more ready to step into that position. Dictator will keep firing until he sees a loyal drone in the slot.
