3,134 karma · joined June 24, 2009
I'm not affiliated in any way, just a very happy customer.
I find this approach to produce the highest quality output and I can ask it to explain reasoning, improve certain things, or elaborate and expand code.
To assert vaccines were not tested, when they very much were, and then to move the goal post when I challenged him (and challenged the moved goal posts) is not quibbling. It is correcting.
> An EUA can only be granted when no adequate, approved, available alternatives exist, and when the known and potential benefits outweigh the potential risks.
> It is the job of the FDA to ensure medical products meet rigorous safety and efficacy standards, a process that can take years for what’s called “full approval.” Though that timeline is condensed when an EUA is granted, the FDA still upholds its strict standards.
> On January 31, 2022, the FDA announced the second approval of a COVID-19 vaccine.
https://www.fda.gov/emergency-preparedness-and-response/coro...
> On August 23, 2021, FDA announced the first approval of a COVID-19 vaccine.
https://www.fda.gov/emergency-preparedness-and-response/coro...
If you're not sure, then just don't say anything or perhaps frame it as a question.
It is true that is a weaker standard than "FDA Approved" but it is still a high standard and certainly not "no testing".
What you've said here is both true and moving the goal post from your first claim while also ignoring the other fact: they were approved for emergency use which means they still were subjected to rigorous testing and trials.
They did not have least testing, they underwent parallel trial testing.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/science/coronavirus...
https://www.umms.org/coronavirus/covid-vaccine/facts/testing
Your comment amounts to dangerous misinformation. If you really believe what you've written, please provide high quality primary sources that show medicines were administered that were untested. Anything else is you spreading misinformation.
Nix the set of tools gives you convenient command line tools that can: evaluate Nix language expressions, build recipes, analyze build-time or run-time dependency graphs of a recipe, give you ephemeral shells with the packages you want in scope but not installed "globally", package management tools to install packages globally, and recipe diffing tools so you can see how recipes changed.
Nix the package manager is a convenient, gigantic, community effort to explicitly describe how to (reproducibly) build almost all of the OSS software that users need and it comes with a substitution cache so that most recipe build products are easily substituted when installing, so you don't have to build. Even if you don't use Nix, nixpkgs is still impressive because you have the most explicit documentation for how to build a piece of software from source and all of its dependencies than anywhere else on the internet, it usually rivals project author's in its specificity, explicitness, and clarity.
NixOS the Linux distribution combines all of this together with a convenient configuration module system and generally good defaults to give you an operating system that is declaratively specified from your etc hosts file all the way down to the recipe for building the kernel, a rich and granular dependency graph, reproducible OS configuration builds, and diffs between closures.
My biggest gripe with Nix is the lack of static types. This was the originator's biggest mistake that Nix will be living with for a very long time to come. Static types would have helped bring the learning curve down IMHO and made it easier to document and less frustrating to debug.
That being said, the overall properties of Nix, nixpkgs, and NixOS far outweigh the pain points in my six years of production experience with it and for what we care about: auditability, reproducibility, explicitness, efficiency, and integrity.
Definitely more than just a developer play thing.
The interface for configuring the content policies is really easy to use too.
I also really like the browser isolation feature too - I use it to access links from emails I feel suspicious about.
... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4813425/
Decriminalizing psychedelics is likely to help with the treatment of mental health problems that often lead people to substance abuse.
The idea that substance abuse is a character flaw is outdated and harmful. Some substances are certainly dangerous. Psychedelics are not in most cases. Condemning people who are using dangerous substances perpetuates the cycle of shame which keeps people from being able to heal.
And, have you ever worked with giant configs in json or yaml? It becomes incredibly painful to manage.
I do think there is a place for Yoga in giving our bodies different kinds of movements so we experience our body in different ranges of motion and positions but Yoga is nothing like compound barbell training (whether it's powerlifting or olympic weightlifting).
I'm not affiliated with this person or business but Ouroboros Press has a beautiful edition of this book (I own a copy): https://www.bookarts.org/store/p19/Theatrum_Chemicum_Britann...