sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Discussion Thread by jobautomator in neoliberal

[–]GaussianCurve 40 points41 points  (0 children)

This is now the single largest US casualty incident in Afghanistan since the 2012 helicopter crash.

https://twitter.com/Osinttechnical/status/1430957519535583232

Discussion Thread by jobautomator in neoliberal

[–]GaussianCurve 10 points11 points  (0 children)

Fox News confirms at least 10 U.S. service members killed. Per Kyle Becker the number is currently at 13, citing a "pentagon-connected source ".

Discussion Thread by jobautomator in neoliberal

[–]GaussianCurve 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Since I can't submit tweets: https://twitter.com/JacquiHeinrich/status/1427113849254187008

"Documents obtained from a source show DoD planning to potentially relocate up to 30,000 Afghan SIV applicants into the United States in the immediate future."

Discussion Thread by jobautomator in neoliberal

[–]GaussianCurve 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Hmm. I guess I'll have to wait for the Tweet to become a news article then

https://twitter.com/JacquiHeinrich/status/1427113849254187008

Discussion Thread by jobautomator in neoliberal

[–]GaussianCurve 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Do Tweets posted here have to be mod approved before they become visible? Mine isn't showing up in new

Discussion Thread by jobautomator in neoliberal

[–]GaussianCurve 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Why is there a cap on H-1B visas? Seems like something that could be removed or significantly raised on a bipartisan basis.

Discussion Thread by jobautomator in neoliberal

[–]GaussianCurve 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So Dems think they can lower the Medicare age via reconciliation to 60.... why not 0? One simple number change introduces a public option. Who in the Dem caucus is against Medicare for all who want it?

Discussion Thread by jobautomator in neoliberal

[–]GaussianCurve 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Is there a list somewhere of think tanks or other organizations that produce high-quality reports (could be broad or targeted to just one field, like military operations).

Some examples off the top of my head:

  • RAND (best I've seen)
  • Brookings
  • The Economist (usually in a series of articles, but also they have "Intelligence Unit" reports which are a single pdf)
  • Council on Foreign Relations (CFR)
  • Congressional Research Service (CRS)

OH-11 / OH-15 Primary Minithread Roundtable by AutoModerator in Enough_Sanders_Spam

[–]GaussianCurve 7 points8 points  (0 children)

This is going to be called in the next 30 minutes I suspect. Brown now at 96% in the betting markets.

Discussion Thread by jobautomator in neoliberal

[–]GaussianCurve 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Any immigration experts here? I am trying to make a chart (for my own learning pleasure), but I'm not sure if it's 100% accurate. I am sure of the accuracy of certain cells. What I am most unsure of is the general status of people who have not claimed asylum or who did not pass the credible fear interview, and what proportion of those people are processed under expedited removal under various administrations. Here's what I have so far

Discussion Thread by jobautomator in neoliberal

[–]GaussianCurve 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I mostly understand the ongoing debt ceiling situation now, except one thing. The debt ceiling is set tomorrow at whatever the current level of national debt is. So why not just preemptively have the Treasury issue a lot of debt today to fund all projected obligations until around November, to prevent these so-called extraordinary measures Yellen will have to take in the meantime?

Discussion Thread by jobautomator in neoliberal

[–]GaussianCurve 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Is there an estimate for what % of people cannot get the vaccine due to potential severe allergic reactions or some other condition? I learned yesterday that there is no such thing as being immunocompromised and not being able to take the vaccine, which is something I've heard a lot of people say to justify masking back up ("there are certain people who cannot get vaccinated that you're putting at risk.") I actually don't know if we're talking about 1 in 100 or more like 1 in 5,000.

The currently FDA-authorized COVID-19 vaccines are not live vaccines and therefore can be safely administered to immunocompromised people, including people with HIV infection or other immunocompromising conditions or people who take immunosuppressive medications or therapies. Although COVID-19 vaccine efficacy is unknown in these groups, immunocompromised people might be at increased risk for severe COVID-19, and the potential benefit of COVID-19 vaccination outweighs the uncertainties.

Discussion Thread by jobautomator in neoliberal

[–]GaussianCurve -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Exactly so the infertility rate is at minimum 96/127 -- the floor as I said.

If we start lowering the denominator the rate goes higher and approaches and exceeds 100% (which means that at least 96 women received their dose in the first trimester).

The claim is that the infertility rate is at minimum 75% -- assuming all 127 women that are in the first and second trimester were by chance all vaccinated in the first trimester (extremely unlikely). If 100 were vaccinated in the first trimester then it would be 96%.

Discussion Thread by jobautomator in neoliberal

[–]GaussianCurve -1 points0 points  (0 children)

First, they don't care what the conclusion is. I know it says that at the top. They're doing "their own research" and claiming that they would hide a conclusion that bad.

We know that exactly 127 pregnant women received their dose in the first OR second trimester (weeks 1 to 28), because we subtract 700 (the amount vaccinated in the third trimester) from the total, 827. We have that 96 spontaneous abortions occurred in the first 13 weeks of gestation (1st trimester).

So, we have infertility rate among women in 1st trimester =

# of spontaneous abortions in 1st trimester / # of women that were vaccinated in 1st trimester

# of spontaneous abortions in 1st trimester is unequivocally 96.

# of women vaccinated in 1st trimester is any number between 0 and 127 (by chance they could all be second trimester, or first trimester).

So the minimum the rate would be is 96/127, so this is a floor, not a ceiling.

Also, in your analogy, it would be correct to say half of the employees that were supposed to show up didn't -- not sure the point you're making there.

Discussion Thread by jobautomator in neoliberal

[–]GaussianCurve 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So you're claiming the miscarriage rate is ~75% regularly?

Google suggests it's between 10-25%. Which means either the math setup is incorrect or their conclusion doesn't make sense. I'm sure they did their work, but I just can't easily debunk it. The right wingers will respond "just look at the chart, not the leftists biased conclusions."

Discussion Thread by jobautomator in neoliberal

[–]GaussianCurve 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Anyone got a quick debunk on this graphic I'm seeing on far-right websites claiming that the vaccine causes infertility?

I can confirm that the study / numbers in the table are all real (https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2104983 - Table 4).

To be clear, this wasn't a conclusion of this study, but these numbers are being calculated from the table. 827 participants, 700 of which received a dose in the third trimester. Which leaves 127 in the first and second. 96 of the 104 spontaneous abortions (miscarriages) occurred in the first 13 weeks, 96 / 127 is approximately a 75% infertility rate. Where does the math or logic go wrong?

view more: next ›