We’ll convert the bloodmouths, one way or another! The next plan is mosquitoes that make you allergic to cheese.

Bezos is halfway there; his yacht cost 500 million:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koru_(yacht)

Give it a few more years and I bet one of them will buy a a billion dollar yacht. But in an ideal world, such absurdities wouldn’t exist.

They were raised to be terrified of it, and so they raise their kids to be terrified of it, and the cycle perpetuates. It’s hard to break. The reasoning is usually that seeing nudity will tempt them to sin. As someone who abandoned his puritanical upbringing nearly 20 years ago, I still have a hard time just being ok with human bodies - even after being a nurse for some years, I’m still not entirely desensitized to nudity.

Ugh. I’m on on of T-Mobile’s MVNO’s. Unfortunately, it’s not like Verizon or AT&T are morally superior. What’s a guy to do?

Remind me why we allowed this much consolidation of the industry?

That would require acknowledging that he is the problem. He doesn’t have that level of introspection. It’s easier for him to just convince himself that the professionals are the problem.

Nurse here: I have a hard time imagining vaccines won’t be covered by insurance unless federal law starts to prohibit it for some bonkers reason. Vaccines are the simplest and most effective prevention for a number of illnesses which can require expensive care. And they’re cheap. Vaccines are good for the bottom line. Like, they’re practically gold. If they didn’t make financial sense, insurance companies wouldn’t be covering them. It would be unfathomable for insurance companies to elect not to cover them unless they can also elect not to cover treatment for the resultant illness.

That said, I think the much more likely thing is RdumbFucK Jr. trying to make them unavailable, because clearly someone who has zero training in medicine or infectious disease or any science of any kind knows better than the collective consensus of the entire world’s medical community… So, get your vaccinations while you can.

But… What the fuck did just happened here? 🎶

*sunny passions of a dozen fires

I don’t watch star trek.

I like […] The Orville, […]

They use Haiku and watch Farscape.

So, like, … maybe 50 or so smaller regions? And a few other mostly even smaller territories that don’t get those rights, just for funsies?

I joke, of course. But in seriousness: Are you suggesting the US just defederate and become more like, say, the EU? What are you anticipating that would solve? Moreover, what is it that makes it too big to be a democracy? Can large governments exist only in authoritarian forms? Why would that be?

The highest paid employee at many universities, especially in the south east, is the football coach. If that doesn’t tell you where our priorities are…

I also work inpatient psych, doing admission evaluations. Anecdotally, it seems like my patients who report using synthetics and distillates get the worst psychotic symptoms while under the influence. I’m guessing the delta-8 edibles and vaporizers they’re buying legally from local shops probably contain no CBD at all.

Egads, that poor child is probably going to have significant scarring around the cuts. Assuming he didn’t get a massive infection that they didn’t bother to get treated until amputation was necessary.

Japanese knotweed (Reynoutria japonica): Amateurs!

Just a thoughtless prescriptivist, repeating what I’d understood from previous such discussions, without having done my own due diligence. 🤷 I stand corrected.

It’s not the use of the word “female” itself, but the use of the word as a noun to describe a woman, because it is taken to imply that the woman is a mere object. As the other person who replied to you said: context matters.

I use the word “female” (and “male”) every single day when documenting on my patients, e.g. my notes commonly begin with “Patient is xx years old, female, […].” This is normal and no one would take issue with it, because it is using “female” as an adjective and in a context where the information is important.

It’s worth noting that the words ‘male’ and ‘female’ are adjectives, not nouns, so if you want to be technical then it’s erroneous to use them thusly. That is, it is correct to say “I am male”, but to say “I am a male” is grammatically erroneous.

In common speech, people don’t tend to describe other human beings with these two adjectives, i.e. most people would say “she is a woman” rather than “she is female” (note, not “she is a female” because ‘female’ is not a noun). However, we do commonly describe animals using these adjectives, and colloquially the noun is commonly dropped. E.g., “it’s a female” is seen as a perfectly normal way to describe a horse when it’s understood that the other party knows that you mean “it’s a female horse”. This is why it is considered offensive to refer to a woman as “a female”: it implies that she is an object, less than human and more suitably treated as livestock.

He *allegedly" did those things. Part of the problem here, and with the death penalty generally, is the apparently general presumption of his guilt. He has not been to trial yet. Under US law, he is to have the presumption of innocence until proven guilty (as it is entirely possible, however unlikely it may be, that they have the wrong guy or that the charges do not reflect what actually happened), and so it is unreasonable by any measure for the federal AG to be stating that they’re pushing for the death penalty before he has even been federally charged.

Further, he didn’t plead “innocent”, as thats … not a thing? He pled “not guilty”, to the charges, which doesn’t intrinsically mean that he’s denying what actions were accused, but only that he believes the legal charges are not commensurate/congruent with whatever actions he did take (which, again, may or may not even include what he was accused of, cause it could be the wrong guy or an innacurate charge, hence why we have trials in the first place). E.g., someone who killed in self defense but was charged with murder would obviously plead not guilty even if they did in fact kill the person, because killing in self defense is not murder by any legal definition of either. Moreover, “openly denying any wrongdoing” would be entirely appropriate to do if he is in fact the wrong guy and he didn’t actually do anything.

The reporters can always seem to sane-wash Trump and his ilk, and always give them the benefit of the doubt, but not Mangione. Musk gave a salute that was “awkward” and “looked similar to” a Nazi salute, but Mangione is just presumed guilty. Trump is a “successful businessman” despite bankrupting numerous companies, but Mangione is assumed to be a guilty evil murderer before he’s even indicted!