bryans

If you find what I've said more rude than the person making several false claims about the history of DAWs and music, and declaring that folk and acoustic musicians don't care about how they sound -- among other complete nonsense -- that says more about your ethical priorities than it says anything about me.

> If your experience is mostly with modern pop/electronic/hip-hop etc mucisians, of course they'll know about DAWs. [...]

These three paragraphs you wrote are baseless, and you're making massively generalized statements (that are overwhelmingly untrue) while claiming that I'm wrong to be making generalized statements (even though they're overwhelmingly true). Your hypocrisy is staggering.

> This is not only wrong, but a bad faith strawman...

You apparently misread this completely, because your response doesn't make sense. The parent literally said that folk and acoustic performers don't have any need to learn about audio, which is nonsensical and untrue of greater than 90% of folk musicians I've met and worked with (which is many hundreds). If you are trying to back up their claim that a entire swath of a million musicians don't care about how they sound, then your arguments are being made in even worse faith than the parent.

Given that the point of my original comment was that DAW development has always had music production in mind -- and not claiming that absolutely 100% of everyone knows 100% of everything about music and engineering -- you're strictly making bad faith arguments by trying to nitpick semantics.

> 1. That ALL engineers are musicians: His examples are correct

No, they're actually not correct. Two of the examples he provided as "non-musican" engineers had tons of experience with producing electronic music, and the other he purported that the engineer wasn't a musician based on no actual knowledge of the person.

> ALL musicians have a grasp of music production: His example of classical musicians is spot on.

As I already explained, classical musicians are the literal only exception in the world of music, as greater than 99% of the work in their lifetime has nothing to do with recording. You don't get to cherry pick the exception and use it as universal statement.

> EVERY DAW is developed by programmers who are musicians: I can't speak on this, but since he's a DAW developer, he'd sure as hell know a thing or two about that.

Again, you're reinforcing his holier-than-thou nonsense while also pretending you don't see it. He is trying to assert himself as having superior knowledge of the subject because he has worked on a DAW. It doesn't matter to either of you that I've worked as a coder on two separate DAWs in my life. So, no, he doesn't magically know more than other people, especially when he's making claims that are completely false and inaccurate to reality.

At the end of the day, he believes that DAWs were never designed to be used by musicians and that it's a mistake to design them for musicians. It can't be interpreted any other way, because it's literally what he said.

I said nothing of the sort. In fact, the parent commenter is the one claiming that musicians are insignificant. You've misread everything and are putting words in my mouth. Please do better in the future.

> there's some widespread belief that a DAW should be a tool for musicians [...] This means "usable by musicians who find themselves intimidated or confused by the interface [...]

We all understood what you said and meant, and no amount of deflection changes it.

> Classical performers: no need to learn about audio. Folk performers: no need to learn about audio. Live acoustic music performers generally: no need to learn about audio.

Really? You're going to cherry pick classical performers who largely never directly record anything? The only exception in all of music?

Your other two examples, essentially both being folk musicians, are completely wrong and you have zero basis for your assertion, which is apparently that folk musicians don't have any interest in sounding good. As a manager of folk musicians, I can tell you with 100% confidence that you are speaking from a place of complete ignorance.

> Where was the last mixing console you saw that did stretch-to-fit-tempo?

Just because features specific to a digital domain exist, doesn't mean that the DAW interfaces aren't based on real world interfaces. I can't even imagine what you're trying to prove, but it has nothing to do with my statement.

All-in-all, you're doubling down on things that are far from reality, and trying to move the goal posts with every comment. Just admit that you said something completely incorrect and let's all move on with our lives.

This is really all that needs to be quoted to show what nonsense you're trying to pull:

> there's some widespread belief that a DAW should be a tool for musicians [...] I have no idea what I said that made you believe I was suggesting that musicians should not use DAWs.

And the rest of your comment is more holier-than-thou nonsense, mostly baseless and not accurate to any reality that I've ever heard of, much less experienced.

> DAWs used to mimic mixing consoles, but increasingly do not

Except all of the buttons and faders and everything else still look the same. You're completely making things up, and even your made up things don't prove your point. No other DAW developer or audio engineer in the world would back up your claim that DAWs aren't meant to be used by musicians.

> I know hundreds of professional musicians. Most of them know almost nothing about audio engineering other than a few buzzwords.

I've met thousands of musicians in my life, and 90%+ of them understand the basics of audio production. The musicians you know can't be very professional if they haven't ever encountered a situation where they learned anything about audio.

> You don't appear to be aware of the fact that I am a DAW developer

Because apparently my work in the field is irrelevant and I couldn't possibly know anything, right? Every company developing DAWs is primarily engineered by musicians. Just because other non-musical engineers get involved, doesn't make my statement any less factual. There are other aspects to software development (even in DAWs) that don't have anything to do with audio. As "someone in the field," you should know that.

Every audio engineer is also a musician. Every DAW has been developed by audio and software engineers who are also musicians[1]. Every professional musician understands the basic concepts of audio production. DAW UIs mimic the interfaces of real world devices, of which all musicians interact with on a regular basis.

Suggesting that musicians weren't meant to (and shouldn't even be allowed to) use DAWs is beyond nonsensical. This holier-than-thou argument you're trying to make is baseless.

[1] https://twitter.com/JustinFrankel/status/1582430125941198848

> What specific advances have been made in better detection and/or screening? Do we use better technology for this?

The technology[1] and methodology used in detection has advanced significantly and repeatedly.

> If there was some sudden advancement then I'd assume we'd see a sudden jump in the graph. Rather, we see an incredibly smooth and steady increase.

You're ignoring the time it takes for technology to be adopted and implemented. No business, medical or otherwise, blindly purchases every piece of technology the moment it's made available on the market. In medicine, that process can actually be so slow that by the time a specific product reaches mass adoption, the current technology or methodology or medical understanding has already progressed, starting a new cycle of adoption. And that's all still ignoring the financial costs, which are often a barrier for smaller practices.

> Furthermore, the graph is split between male and female and there's very few, if any, little increases that are synchronized across these categories. If technology was a factor I'd assume we'd see increases in both

You're ignoring many factors here, most notably that women visit the doctor more often[2], spend more time per visit and more willingly express concerns[3], and increasingly so as care for women has become more accessible and less stigmatized[4]. Also, the graph is actually extremely synchronized between men and women, so I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion.

[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5624041/

[2] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15130263/

[3] https://newsroom.clevelandclinic.org/2019/09/04/cleveland-cl...

[4] https://swhr.org/about/history/timeline/

> I am not ignoring it: I was bringing a point on terminology, not on this particular lock or lock-picking methods.

You declared an entirely new definition for lockpicking which is contradictory to all accepted definitions of lockpicking, and then used it to repeatedly insist that the lock being discussed isn't pickable. Your comments are public and what you said is clearly visible, so please stop creating new realities when holes are poked in the previously concocted one.

> You seem to be unable to accept that people tend to and do use different terminology for same things, or same terminology for different things. [...] I do struggle to understand why are you so keen to convince others how your use of terminology is the only acceptable use: it's ok to agree to disagree.

You appear unable to accept that there is an entire industry of locksmithing experts and 100% of them use the same terminology. You are insisting that your invented definitions based on zero locksmithing knowledge should be more relevant than the actual definitions standardized over 4,000 years by hundreds of thousands of experts.

The rest of your comment consists of even more bizarre new definitions for lockpicking and mathematics which contradict reality, and veers even further away from the actual topic being discussed. I refuse to engage with it, because you are making all of your arguments in bad faith. If you can provide any shred of evidence for any of your claims about lockpicking, logic or math, I'll happily concede. But we both know that evidence doesn't exist.

> I think there are plenty of ways to read the underlying research and still support a claim that individual specific components of a diet should be chosen to moderate saturated fat intake.

Yes, all of the ways. It's the only interpretation. It is literally what both the research and my comments state. You're still arguing against things that nobody said, while also redefining science and nutrition. I'm unsure of what you're trying to accomplish, but you're strictly making bad-faith arguments which don't reflect reality, and it's obnoxious.

Doesn't learning the Angular structure require learning? If that's the metric and you have to learn good structure for both frameworks, I'm not seeing the advantage. In fact, Angular's rigidity is only an advantage if the developer finds that particular structure comfortable. And the reality is that the vast majority of developers don't find Angular comfortable to work with.

> Link 3 you cited says that saturated fats should be consumed in moderation.

Nobody ever said that saturated fats should be consumed excessively. That would both fly in the face of logic and isn't true for any nutrient. So you're not actually arguing a point here.

> You claim

You just quoted a different HN user and claimed it was something I said, then concocted another argument around it. That's beyond ridiculous and you should be ashamed of yourself.

> The implication, when you say you shouldn’t eat large quantities of sugar+carbs, and that that is totally different from saturated fat, is that you should eat large quantities of saturated fat.

Even though I wasn't the one you quoted and you're arguing with nobody, you're still wrong about this. What you're saying is completely illogical. Saying that you shouldn't do one thing doesn't inherently imply that you should do another.

In reality, the original commenter was stating that you shouldn't eat large quantities of sugar and carbohydrates, and that it's not nearly as harmful to consume large quantities of saturated fat. They never stated that you should consume large quantities of saturated fat.

> It is your opinion that high quantities of saturated fat are desirable

Stop lying. I never said or implied anything about saturated fats being desirable. It's disgusting that you feel so comfortable lying about other people.

> but most research I’ve seen says that the emphasis should be on Whole Foods and unsaturated fats, with some saturated fat tolerated to achieve that.

That is the entire point of my last comment, so I can only presume you didn't actually read it at all. I literally said "Saturated fats contain more LDL than HDL, but their ultimate effect on the total HDL ratio and mortality is negligible. Unsaturated fats contain only HDL, making them inherently healthy presuming an appropriate level of consumption."

I linked the research and then described it to you. Now you're claiming that I said the opposite, and that your research (which you haven't provided) is somehow more correct. Do you not realize that we're on a forum where all of the previous commentary is public? It's clearly visible that I've said absolutely none of the things you just claimed.

> If it is settled science, I would hope you could find and share authoritative evidence that it is. What I’ve seen over the years (and I’m not that old) is that the mainstream “consensus” changes every 10-15 years

The nature of science is that consensus adjusts to data. But unless something is a very new field of research, there typically aren't major shifts in consensus. The scientific process is more akin to incrementally washing away layers of misunderstanding. Within the context of cholesterol and heart disease, we've been washing for over 100 years[1], and the consensus on that connection has been unwavering since the 1950s.

Research in the late 1950s actually hinted at trans fats being the culprit, but then came the aforementioned period of anti-fat political manipulation, so it wasn't until the early 1990s when new studies built on the 1950s research and solidified scientific consensus. That consensus eventually led to federal policy changes and the banning of trans fats, which has since resulted[2] in an estimated ~4.5% reduction in heart disease mortality and an ~8.9% reduction in stroke mortality.

Since those studies in the 1990s, consensus hasn't changed and is quite simple[3] to understand. LDL greatly increases risk for heart disease and stroke. HDL absorbs LDL on its way to the liver, lowering LDL levels. Trans fats contain only LDL and are thereby inherently harmful and deadly. Saturated fats contain more LDL than HDL, but their ultimate effect on the total HDL ratio and mortality is negligible. Unsaturated fats contain only HDL, making them inherently healthy presuming an appropriate level of consumption.

Those are all facts. There is no current research refuting any of it, meaning we are at a stable point in scientific consensus on the subject.

> I’m with you that some level of fat intake is healthy and that sugar/starch are suspect, but I just think it is dishonest or misleading to say it is “fact” or settled science given the uncertainty and ongoing changing nature of the scientific findings.

Again, you're eliminating the possibility for the concept of factual information to exist. Science is always ongoing, but that doesn't mean we don't have any established consensus.

A very long time ago, the extent of our chemistry knowledge was that water made things wet and we must consume it in order to continue living. These days we understand thousands of concepts related to physics and chemistry, nearly all of which have scientific consensus. But if someone today started adamantly claiming that pure water is acidic, that wouldn't make our current understanding uncertain or any less factual. All it would mean is that someone ignored the established consensus and expressed a personal opinion. It doesn't qualify as science and doesn't have any legitimate bearing on practice or policy.

[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3108295/

[2] https://cadmus.eui.eu/bitstream/handle/1814/31898/MWP_2014_1...

[3] https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/what-should-you...

> That’s the trendy opinion for now. This seems to be cyclical. Citing the NYT isn’t really helpful since you can find basically every diet fad/trend in their pages.

I didn't cite the NYT as information about dietary facts. I cited a famous NYT article which unveiled the details of a massively concerted effort by bad actors to invent fake research and then force it onto an entire country as medical fact. The article doesn't make any claims about diets, but instead enumerates the actions of pro-sugar conspirators. So you've concocted this entire argument around something neither I nor the article said.

Your NYT links consist of a letter to the editor, an online Q&A column, one article which specifically discuss how unsaturated fats are good and saturated fats aren't actually bad in moderation, and one article which discusses the business optics of marketing fat/sugar usage from the perspective of an ice cream company. None of what you presented shows inconsistency, and it certainly doesn't qualify as evidence that NYT is bandwagoning or waffling.

> Personal experience tells me that sugar and refined carbs make it harder to maintain a healthy weight, and that’s enough for me. But that’s not a “facts matter” frame. An anti-fat/pro-carb person could list out a whole book worth of facts leading in exactly the wrong direction

Writing a book of personal interpretations and opinions is not the same thing as practicing scientific research. You're declaring that the very existence of detractors from corroborated research magically turns all of those widely-accepted conclusions into "dime a dozen" opinions. If that were how things worked, the very concept of factual information would cease to have any meaning.

> The code for every Angular project is structured the same way - The code for components (and directives, services, etc.) is generally very readable - Everything is easy(ish) to test. [...] And in general Angular seems much easier to learn. If you spend 20 hours watching the Udemy course then you pretty much know it

You just described every frontend framework. None of these are unique to Angular. Any developer with an understanding of JS can learn and use any framework in the exact same way.

> 280k Stack Overflow questions, vs 95k for Vue and 19k for Next. And ease of hiring due to 170k Angular developers in the US (per Sales Navigator), as opposed to 50k for Vue.js and 48k for Next.js

These are false comparisons, and you're conveniently leaving out the largest competitor. A higher SO question count isn't necessarily a positive metric, and may even imply substantial confusion about the framework. More importantly, all of the surveys[1] show that both developer and hiring interest for Angular is waning.

> whereas I regularly see job ads looking for folks with 6+ years of React experience. Now obviously you always hear about job ads looking for folks with 10 years of experience with some technology that's been around for two years, and yet I rarely come across

You're using a popular meme about some notoriously bizarre job listings written by HR managers (or interns) to suggest that developers have a harder time learning frameworks other than Angular. There is no correlation whatsoever between these two things. When "you always hear" and "yet rarely come across," you are experiencing the effects of confirmation bias.

> Angular job ads that implicitly assume it takes multiple years to learn how to use the framework correctly.

If a job lists multiple years of experience as a requirement, why would that automagically mean the employer is "implicitly assuming" multiple years of training is required to accomplish a bare minimum? In reality, it means they're looking for someone who didn't spend last weekend watching a 20 hour Udemy course to obtain a cursory understanding.

They're requiring real-world experience in a similar work/project environment, and they are paying handsomely for that experience. If it were junior development jobs with these requirements, you'd maybe have an argument, but 100% of senior positions have minimum work history requirements, because that is the definition of senior.

[1] https://gist.github.com/tkrotoff/b1caa4c3a185629299ec234d231...

Except there are well-researched and medically-accepted facts about fats. So, while somebody may decide to push a diet which contradicts those facts, it doesn't turn the facts into political positions. It does, however, mean that the person pushing the contradictory diet is pushing a political agenda. And in fact, the primary (and only) instigators of anti-fat ideology were the sugar industry[1] and some political bad actors, which turned out to be lobby-funded medical quackery directly resulting in disease and death for tens of millions of people.

Facts matter. Let's not mislabel or dismiss them just because they're not convenient for everyone.

[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/13/well/eat/how-the-sugar-in...

> I think you have a problem with me communicating using (formal) logic.

The problem is that what you're saying is contradictory to itself. You're conveniently ignoring all of the flaws being pointed out, and instead reiterating the same argument ad nauseam, while also moving goal posts and morphing qualifiers as needed.

> but only when you are able to reduce the problem space from the full set of combinations would I say you are picking a lock. Which means that a lock with 100 combinations, and you try all 100 of them, you are not lock picking, but if you reduce that to trying out 50 combinations, then you are

The fundamental concept which you keep acknowledging but refuse to accept, is that brute force is a reduction of the problem space. In fact, it's a >99% guarantee to be reduced. Whereas the other lockpicking methods with a reduced space are not actually guaranteed to defeat the lock in a shorter amount of time, if at all.

You even acknowledged in your first comment that brute-forcing a limited set will, on average, require half as many attempts. Since your qualification for being pickable is that the problem space is reduced by half, then brute-forcing meets your definition of lockpicking half of the time. At that point, it's irrefutably classifiable as lockpicking, with the understanding that other methods may be more (or less) effective.

And you're still ignoring that the entire point of the lock being discussed is that traditional lockpicking methods wouldn't work. At all. Yet, when presented with an option to defeat the lock in less than 4 hours, your reaction was to repeatedly state that it doesn't even count as lockpicking. I don't know what else to say.

That's a good question. KFC gets 12 million customers per day. Let's generously assume an average of one 9g packet is included per customer. The packets already contain 7% honey, so to go full honey is an additional demand of 100 metric tons out of 4,850 produced daily, which represents ~2% of the total market. The average retail price of this grade of honey is $0.45/oz, so even presuming production continues to decline during this increased demand, we would see an increase of roughly $0.10 per 16oz bottle for store brand honeys. We would also be taking 5,475 metric tons of sugar out of global diets every year, or 22 billion calories.

I'm rarely shocked by the ingredients of food anymore, but I was looking at a packet of "honey sauce" from KFC the other day, and couldn't help but laugh at the things we're doing to ourselves. There are 11 ingredients and 5 of them are added sugar. All to recreate something resembling honey, at approximately 2/3 the cost of real honey.

"High Fructose Corn Syrup, Corn Syrup, Sugar, Honey (7%), Fructose, Contains 2% or Less of: Caramel Color, Molasses, Water, Citric Acid, Natural and Artificial Flavor, Malic Acid."

That is sugar, sugar, sugar, honey, sugar, color, sugar, water, acid, flavorant, acid. The lengths they've gone to save a literal penny are staggering.

> I am not sure if I would call trying all combinations "picking s lock" [...] that would not make the lock pickable if I was to talk about it [...] but only when you are able to reduce the problem space from the full set of combinations would I say you are picking a lock. [...] So I am not saying that a brute-forceable lock is not pickable

You quite literally said it's not pickable and not even lockpicking at all, and have even reiterated as much in this new comment, so please don't pretend otherwise.

> but only when you are able to reduce the problem space from the full set of combinations would I say you are picking a lock.

All of the dictionaries and an entire industry of professional locksmiths disagree with that statement. Given that you've twice admitted to having "no clue about locks," I'm not sure why you continue to insist that uninformed personal opinions are somehow factually obvious.

> Sure, if a particular lock is more prone to brute-forcing due to its design than an average lock (eg. side channel attacks like timing attacks with passwords), one could surely qualify that as a pickable lock (or a "weak" password scheme).

You keep trying to apply the concepts of digital authentication to locksmithing, but they're just not applicable in the way you're describing. The "average lock" doesn't exist, and certainly can't be used as a basis for determining the threshold of whether an entirely different lock qualifies as pickable.

As far as I can determine, your opinion boils down to believing that successfully brute-forcing a lock with only 100 possible combinations does qualify as lockpicking, but successfully brute-forcing a lock with 1,000,000 possible combinations somehow doesn't qualify as lockpicking.

I'm not sure how that position is justifiable, made worse that the lock being discussed is notably prone to brute force and within a very reasonable amount of time. So, if "weakness" is your qualification for a lock being pickable, then you're arguing against your own assertion that this lock is unpickable.

> I am not sure if I would call trying all combinations "picking s lock"

Lockpicking is defined as opening a lock with an instrument other than the appropriate key. It is not defined by how many attempts it takes. Many of the most common lockpicking methods are nothing more than brute force, which are sometimes incredibly effective. They're also sometimes the opposite of effective, meaning they may take many thousands of attempts before stumbling upon success. That doesn't disqualify them from the definition of lockpicking.

> You could also bring all 46k key variations and try them out [...] but that would not make the lock pickable if I was to talk about it.

The entire point of lockpicking is that you don't need to make every key combination, and instead only need a small set of tools or a single device. The personal decision to make every key instead of using another method, doesn't mean the lock isn't pickable, it just means you spent a lot of time making keys. You could also make all of the keys for a basic $1 padlock, but that padlock is still pickable with a paperclip. It didn't become unpickable by creating the keys.

> I have no clue about locks, but there's a difference between brute forcing a password and decrypting it from the hash.

Yes, the difference is that one will definitely take longer than the other, but you don't actually know which until you've successfully completed the task. They're both still password cracking methods with the same end result. One doesn't magically stop being a cracking method just because it takes longer.

The issues are so much worse than what is being described in this post. Reddit-appointed moderators are used as a protective layer for all of the company's shady, anti-social and sometimes straight up illegal behaviors. The perfect example of this is RPAN, their recently defunct streaming function, where a dozen subreddits were created by the company and populated with moderators, who then spent two years brazenly lying on behalf of the admins at every opportunity and constantly gaslighting the entire community.

They lied to advertisers by inflating viewership numbers 35x higher than reality. They sold their top broadcast mechanism to these advertisers, but repeatedly told the viewers that what they were witnessing was community-created content. The "algorithm" had a built-in caste system which was manually manipulated and curated by admins, while they directed mods to convince the community they don't even have the ability to manipulate the rankings. They even allowed the sexual proposition of minors to take place on a daily basis, while both mods and admins were fully aware of it -- never mind the reports, they were sometimes in the chat while it was happening. They permanently banned anyone who discussed any of these issues, without hesitation.

And this list is just the tip of the iceberg of Reddit's Black Mirror-esque methodologies. The moderators are extremely loyal to the admins, because there are significant perks involved, not least of which being that moderators have notably become a hiring pool. It's no coincidence that the mods who are the most willing to lie are the same people finding employment within the company.

The fun part of audio is that there's multiple ways to do it. You can use spectrum analysis, impulse response, harmonic frequency, beamforming, triangulation and more. Some would be easier than others in this situation, but you could technically use any of them to pick this lock.

Exactly. And based on the test mechanism simply requiring a ~46 degree turn to fail, I think it could actually be done in ~300ms per attempt, which would make the maximum solution even lower at ~4 hours. That's of course still a lot better than a traditional mechanism, which even brute force robotic pickers can tear through rapidly, but it's far from "unpickable."

Ultimately, even lengthening the time per attempt wouldn't help save it from attack, because not only is this lock susceptible to robotics, it's easily pickable with audio analysis. Much like the traditional mechanisms that this lock hopes to replace, you only need to analyze one to build a matrix applicable to all of the locks.

It's not unpickable, and the creator doesn't claim it's unpickable, either. So the title really shouldn't include the word.

> Almost all states (and other countries) where abortion is legalized still have reasonable limits on when they may be performed (e.g., not after second trimester). I think we would both agree that an abortion of an otherwise viable and healthy baby one day before expected delivery would be unethical.

Your moral compass isn't accounting for the logistics of pregnancy. At any point during a pregnancy or childbirth, complications can arise which risk the mother's life, and a medical decision is most often made to save her instead of a potentially healthy child. By both medical and legal definition, this is still an abortion. To declare that it's not ethical to abort in these situations is a declaration that it is ethical to kill the mother. So, we very much do not agree that the ethics of abortion are obvious or even quantifiable.

> Many things people do don’t infringe on my rights. Someone murdering another person doesn’t infringe MY rights, but it is still wrong. A parent beating their child doesn’t infringe my rights but is still abuse.

I think you missed the point here, or I wasn't clear enough. Given that the spectrum of ethics doesn't allow for a standard threshold of "murder" and we've already established that abortions are a medical necessity, the only case against the right to abortion boils down to being personally offended by someone else's actions. If medical care can be decided by personal offense and codified into a law that is guaranteed to be harmful, then we don't actually have the freedoms described in the Constitution.

> Yes, but we are in disagreement on which rights are applicable in this case. [...] It is not, nor should it ever be, the responsibility of the court to attempt to enshrine a right that does not exist through case law.

Freedom of speech protects the moral threshold discussed earlier. Right to privacy protects medical information. Freedom of religion is based on separation of church and state, which means religious beliefs shouldn't hold any bearing at the federal level, particularly because they may directly contradict the beliefs of another religion. These are all fundamental concepts of our democracy, and it is absolutely the court's job to uphold them when challenged.

And the case law does exist (it's the one which just got overturned), so even if you were correct about the court's responsibility, then they just did the opposite of what you're purporting that responsibility to be.

> I believe that the unborn baby is a viable human life at some point and that abortion without a justifiable reason after that point would be equivalent to murder.

That's the entire point! You're not objecting to abortion. You're objecting at some point in time and only when it's medically unjustifiable. But those moral thresholds are different for every individual and there are medically justifiable situations, which is exactly why no individual should be able to impose their personal beliefs as a law which declares those medical situations as unjustifiable.

You're welcome to have moral objections and believe they are the most correct or reasonable, but they have no bearing on the concerted efforts of religious groups and individuals to outright ban access to medical care. And that's the discussion at hand, which you keep conveniently ignoring. Many people have total opposition to all abortions in all situations and specifically for religious reasons, which is what actual, real-life politicians are implementing as we speak.

Someone else having an abortion (whether you believe it's murder or not) doesn't infringe on your rights. But you imposing your beliefs in a way that affects someone else's medical care is absolutely infringing on their rights. These are fundamental concepts of our democracy.

> I don’t know why you keep bringing up religion, I have not mentioned it at all.

The only objection anyone has to abortion is based on religious beliefs. So, you didn't need to mention it. It's the foundation of the entire issue -- that religious beliefs can be imposed on a population as law. Saying that it's irrelevant to the discussion betrays an ignorance of the subject at hand.

> None of these rights apply to abortion. If anything, there should be an enumerated right to bodily autonomy.

The enumeration does not need to specifically reference the word to be applicable. For a different example, the 4th amendment doesn't contain any verbiage about police officers opening a trunk during a traffic stop, but the declaration that they must have probable cause still applies. In the exact same way, to assert religious beliefs that affect someone else's medical care violates all of the rights I listed.

> How is pregnancy not a personal circumstance?

Pregnancy does not, in and of itself, prevent access to medical care. So while it is a personal circumstance, it is entirely inapplicable within the context of care being intentionally prevented.

> I suppose the most similar analogy I could think of is a doctor refusing to perform a surgery which has a high chance of outright killing a patient and a smaller chance of treating the issue.

Not analogous, at all. That's a medical professional making a single medical decision based on medical information. That surgeon is not preventing the patient from finding another surgeon who will perform the procedure. Whereas what you're suggesting, is that freedom of religion should give politicians the right to make a singular blanket medical decision on behalf of everyone in their state, present and future, without any situational knowledge or medical reasoning.

It's not a constitutional right to abortion. It's a constitutional right to not have personal liberties stripped by the states which are enumerated in the Constitution. Freedom of speech, freedom of religion and right to privacy are all enumerably applicable to preserving this liberty. The ability for anyone to impose their personal religious beliefs on a population violates all of those rights.

None of your analogies are applicable. Somebody dying because their personal circumstances made receiving medical care difficult or impossible, is patently different than dying because someone else was allowed to deny them medical care by imposing their personal religious beliefs.

Everything you've said is contradictory to reality, and you are displaying a fundamental misunderstanding of science and statistics. I won't engage with your increasingly childish antics, but I will make one last attempt at making you recognize your mistakes, in the very unlikely event that you're willing to learn from them.

> 2127 patients that are already in the ER, for various possible reasons. Invalid dataset.

You keep mistakenly using this number for all of your calculations, but 2,127 is completely irrelevant to anything at all, because it includes 1,972 people who didn't participate. This should be obvious, but people who don't participate in a study aren't part of the study -- whereas what you're suggesting is the exact opposite of scientific methodology. The actual dataset is 155 participants, of whom 51 experienced CHS symptoms within the previous 6 months and 104 didn't.

> This would mean, by their and/or your logic: that out of a "general population" dataset, 7% smoke >= 20 days a month, which on a side note absolutely conflicts with other statistics on weed consumption [...] even if that was a valid line of thinking, it would imply that: Out of 35 million cannabis smokers, there are 23 million that smoke weed more than 20 days a month [...] You know what that is? 21% of all cannabis consumers. I don't think so. Their logic is flawed.

All of the available data[1] says that the number of daily marijuana smokers is between 6-8% of the total population, and between 15-25% of the marijuana smoking population. So, their logic[2] was both very accurate and entirely debunks all of your claims -- making it rather despicable that you're asserting yourself as intellectually superior to multiple teams of scientists.

> The dataset IS limited to a group of patients in the ER, you knucklehead. That's what was used to generate the dataset in the first place. A subset of people they found in an ER. Exclusively. That's a bias that almost certainly invalidates the whole calculation. You also have no way of inferring back to the population from it.

What's especially ridiculous about these assertions (besides the childishness), is that you don't even realize you're arguing against yourself. If it were strictly CHS-presenting patients, then that sample would be only those sick enough to require medical attention, meaning the actual number of CHS cases would be higher across the entire population, as most CHS cases don't actually lead to hospitalizations. That number can't magically be less. It could only be higher.

But it's specifically not CHS-presenting patients. It's an inclusion of 155 daily smokers from a random sampling of 2,127 approached (versus ~28,000 total) visitors to a specific location over the course of 71 days. That it's an ER doesn't actually matter, because the reporting was based on 6 months of usage, meaning their visit doesn't necessarily have anything to do with marijuana or vomiting -- and in fact, anyone presenting with abdominal pain or vomiting was excluded[3] from the study.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6461328/

[1] "But the number of Americans who use cannabis heavily is soaring. In 2006, about 3 million Americans reported using the drug at least 300 times a year, the standard for daily use. By 2017, that number had increased to 8 million—approaching the 12 million Americans who drank every day. Put another way, only one in 15 drinkers consumed alcohol daily; about one in five marijuana users used cannabis that often."

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bcpt.12962

[2] "In this survey cohort of ED patients, 32.9% of self-reported frequent marijuana users met our definition of CHS. Extrapolating on a reported 8.364 million near-daily or daily marijuana smokers in the United States in 2014, we estimate between 2,130,000 to 3,380,000 individuals have suffered from CHS symptoms in the United States. This prevalence estimation was generated using data up to 2014, suggesting the true prevalence of CHS may be higher today given current trends in increased marijuana usage."

[3] "This convenience sample included all patients between the ages of 18 and 49 years able to consent who did not currently complain of nausea, vomiting or abdominal pain. Patients presenting with nausea, vomiting or abdominal pain were excluded to avoid confounding conditions and, thus, an overestimate of CHS prevalence."

Your argument ignores nearly all of the factors involved with dosage -- most notably tolerance. Tolerance reduces perceived effectiveness, requiring increased dosage to achieve the desired psychological results. People regulate their consumption to that psychological effect, but the negative physical effects do not share the same curve.

Not to mention the vast difference between what it says on the label and what you may actually be consuming -- the testing and labeling processes are rather notorious for being inaccurate. Even for an avid smoker, it's virtually impossible to consume the exact appropriate dosage, if there even were such a thing. There's also social pressures which encourage people to consume larger amounts. The list goes on and on.

So, what you're suggesting as being the obvious negator of the expert opinions of medical professionals, simply has no foundation in reality.