Look up TASS news. That is all.

To be fair, gas stoves put out a lot of benzene and are known to increase cancer rates in those who live in homes with natural gas stoves. If anything they should be taxed to pay into cancer healthcare costs.

While I understand the resentment of saying an institution is a person, and I agree- they still have constitutional rights. To say that private institutions don’t have a right to free speech is the same as saying that the government is allowed to dictate what companies can and can’t say. Authoritarians would love for you to push that idea.

Under your same thinking (Harvard isn’t a person and has no right to a first amendment? OK): Then Harvard resisting against the trump administration is illegal and we find it treasonous to be funneling in possible spies from adversarial countries under the guise of education. We need to lock up anyine who works at any higher ed institution unless they can swear loyalty to America (trump) because they might be complicit in this spy ring. And don’t forget, the universities can be searched at any time for evidence and assumed guilty without trial because they aren’t a person and don’t have constitutional rights! Can we charge the university entity with state laws or federal laws? Both! They don’t have rights to protect against double jeopardy!

I find it funny that the tankies still think Russia can hold their own in a fight against NATO when they let can’t even beat up on their smaller neighbor with NATO hand-me-downs and previous generation surplus gear.

Increases in other contracts that funnel tax money into oligarc pockets but provide no value to tax payers, decrease in revenue collected to offset expenses due to IRS cuts and tax code changes, and the other big one is from judicial fund settlements that have already surpassed pre trump levels.

Think of a more direct democracy. I will oversimplify enough to annoy those from Switzerland:

Differing levels of law require differing thresholds. Country votes on a law, the majority above the required threshold vote it in. It becomes a national law. That is easy. What about when it fails? Then look to the state level. Did it pass the threshold for your state? Yes? Then it is a state law. Failed state level? Let’s look at your county/city/local level. Passed threshold? Local law.

Again, over simplified, but general idea.

I have a bunch of coworkers who were contractors in a position for about a decade, then transitioned over to GS employees doing the same job. They were classified as probationary due to being “new” to their positions and were put on notice.

You were so right, let me tell you about it. If you can’t stop the entire genocide, then don’t stop it at all. If you can’t stop all of climate change, then don’t take any steps to stop any of it. If you can’t end poverty or income inequality then you shouldn’t even help the starving.

What a cunt.

Am I the only one who read the paper? All the comments are like: it’s only mice.

They did it in 6 different breeds of knockout mice, rats, and beagles -as in the best dog model for cancer translation to humans. They are well passed the threshold needed to show strong potential in people.

Other comments: it’s new and experimental

They have been working with it for years now and have shown efficacy down to a single dose. That is what this paper is about. They had previous tests with the compound, then with decreasing doses, and now this paper will it down to a single dose.

Other comments: there is no way this is real

Of the 9 primary authors, 4 are on NIH grants. I’m taking a wild guess no one here has had to fill one of those out, but they take about a month of solid writing and submitting evidence as to why your thing should get funded due to the shortage of scientific funding, then it gets reviewed by several rounds of blinded experts in the field to evaluate if you have any merit to what you are talking about, then you have to submit regular updates to show that you aren’t just pissing away tax dollars. On top of that, this was done out of a lab at the university of Illinois urbana-champaign, meaning you also have university funds mixed in so you have them checking in on you. Then they also had a state cancer research grant, adding more oversight.

How real is it? If you read the paper you would have seen they were using human tumors grown in the mice. This is a very well established cancer testing method. The downfall in their model, as they pointed out, is using NSG and athymin mice. These are immunocompromised mice. They bring up how with the necrotic cell death in the tumor (from the drug working ironically so well and so fast) that they don’t know how human immune systems will respond to it and that is kind of their next direction of the research.

Read the full abstract, then at least read the discussion section near the end if you want to get a better understanding of what is going on. Then if you are still interested, go back up to the intro and read through from there till you can’t any more.

Yes, it was supposed to have a sequel. It was the start of a franchise that never became one. The OP of the OP is not wrong in saying it was a setup and wanted a sequel. The difference of this movie versus the slop of other sequels is this one was made to be one. It wasn’t based on some one-off movie that did well, so the studio demanded a followup to milk it for more money. From its inception this movie was supposed to have one.

Seconded. Pull gpu. Test. If persist, pull first stick of ram, cycle other sticks up. Test. Alternatively use a mem test.

Either a bad gpu or an early mem block could do this.

If neither solve the issue, it could be a mobo issue, but less likely.

Too soon for Obi Wan? 1977? Nah.

But I will tell you what was too soon. I was at a firefly/serenity trivia night back in about 2008 or 2009 and everyone had various firefly related cute names. Kaylee’s commandos, the 'Washbucklers, team ‘leaf on the wind’, and such. Then you had the one team that chose fire. Their team name was “Reaver cleaning company: putting spears in the wash since 2005”

That was too soon…

When it is easy bull markets, I go heavy on growth stocks. When the market is bear, I go heavy on dividends. Right now though there is a high beta turmoil, so I have a mix of both. My IRA is also set up as more od a “leave this alone” investment. My etrade account has my “fuck around and find out” money. I mention this because it is hard to directly compare the two. So far my dividends have strongly out performed the growth stocks, but only in the last 3 months or so has the gap widened. I credit it to 2 specific ones that are getting me 30%-ish yields with stable prices. They are also new etf’s, so the hedge money is still strong before the stripping gets to its prices. I mentioned in a post lower that that my little under 30k is netting me 800/month. Honestly it is paying a higher yield than renting out my condo is getting me.

It is also called ‘dividend stripping’.

Also yes. The more professional name is ‘dividend capture strategy’. More work, worth the pay off, do all you can to avoid commissions and fees.

Little under 30k in higher risk dividend. Bring in about 800 a month.

I have a mix of large cap, small cap growth stocks, then dividend high risk and low risk. Stock like this (I do not own PETS, I was just using it as an example) would be a high risk due to its price instability. But you mitigate that with stop loss orders.

I have a vanguard/roth for my longs (large cap growths and stable dividends with DRIP) and then use etrade for the small cap or high risk ones. I like their tax documents and easy interface.

People make arguments against dividend stocks, I simply call it a different strategy. Some years it beats out my growths, some years it is about on par. Depends on where I have it at the time and slightly more market dependant.

I have recently gotten into ex-date chasing. While it has increased the returns, it is more work.

Sure. It is still a lower rate than going into dividend stocks.

PETS, sorry, don’t know why my phone cut off the ‘S’.

PETMED EXPRESS INC COM

$10,000 at 4% gives you $400 interest in one year.

Just about any decent dividend stock will outperform that. Look at PET for example. It is sitting at $3.65/share right now and offers a quarterly dividend of $0.30. That puts you at $1.20/share per year. 10k = 2739 shares = $3,286.80 dividend payout in one year.

Banks are the worst place to put investments. Money in bank accounts are only supposed to be there if you need it liquid, like an emergency fund or your checking account.

*PETS

PETMED EXPRESS INC COM

For all the nay sayers downvoting me as if it is impossible to find dividend stocks that outperform their precious SPY or high yield savings rates, here is a great list I found with shit loads. I count 60 different stocks that offer 10% yields or more. 100 in total all offering over 8% -double what some bullshit ‘high yield’ savings offers.

https://www.tradingview.com/markets/stocks-usa/market-movers-high-dividend/

I am a fan of all good sci-fi, regardless of the time it was made or the limits of the budget. This one is on the list. I will warn others as it has been pointed out- very rape centric plot and story beats. Be sure to watch it with a good level of suspension of disbelief and understanding of the setting. Beyond that, it is one of the best post apocalyptic stories out there and I wish it was redone with more plot, tighter story, and less rape related with the exception of the Topeka plot line. Highly recommend for anyone who enjoys old sci fi or post apoc.