> Destroying evidence assumes he is guilty of a crime which there be evidence of.
This is 100% untrue. You can be guilty of destroying evidence that includes no criminal activity whatsoever.
27,659 karma · joined July 30, 2011
This is 100% untrue. You can be guilty of destroying evidence that includes no criminal activity whatsoever.
OP makes a good point. The studies assumes two diametrically opposed things will happen - doctors will take a 50% pay cut but access to primary care physicians will increase.
Why would we solve the primary care physician shortage by cutting their pay?
Also the correct measure is % of GDP
Considering the US has one of the lower overall tax rates of developed economies, I’m not sure we’ve reached any sort of crisis level
You can prepare healthy meals from basic and cheap foodstuffs like vegetables, whole grains and legumes, eggs, low cost meat cuts etc. You can prepare delicious meals for under $1 each.
Buying prepared unhealthy foods is what is expensive.
OpenAI gross revenue was $4B in 2024, $13B in 2025 and estimated to hit $26B in 2026. Revenue is doubling or more.
Same with Anthropic. $1B in 2024, $9B in 2025 and estimated to be $47B in 2026.
All the AI companies together are pulling in hundreds of billions of dollars per year in revenue and it's going up quickly. To me, taking on trillions in debt in order to make hundreds of billions in revenue doesn't seem crazy.
And while the quarter by quarter growth may seem astonishing it very different saying “debt levels today are alarming” versus “if this trend continues debt levels will be alarming”
You’re talking about about an amount that is a 13% of the total US government spending, of which is 20% of the entire US GDP.
I’m not saying it’s insignificant but it’s only a few percent of the US GDP and it represents spending over several years.
As a chemist it’s a highly polar, very high boiling point solvent that is the “go to” when you can’t find a solvent your reactants dissolve in.
Acetone is less polar, more chemically reactive and lower boiling point. It’s rarely used as a reaction solvent due to its reactivity, but it is common in crystallizations.
Both are quite non-toxic (your body makes small amounts of acetone!), but I recall a cancer risk with high exposures of DMF (the example was tannery workers who sprayed it without any safety gear and got soaked).
It’s a completely different situation.
However, if Tunick was smart he would have refused to provide the PIN, and let them seize it. He'll get it back eventually, but it was in his right to refuse.
The officer will say something like "That's your choice, but I will need to seize the device to conduct an analysis. It will be returned once the analysis is complete".
Then you shrug, and they will let you enter the US. The cops will try to get into the phone, fail, and return it to you.
Just bring a phone you don't mind losing for a few months.
But that's good no? People who got out never would have taken it seriously.
I sat on a jury trial and was highly impressed with how seriously my fellow jurors took it - especially the presumption of innocence. When they started to go down some incorrect logical path, someone would step up and correct it.
Not to mention the public defender ripped apart the DA's case. It was the exact opposite of what I was expecting.
> Prosecutors have high success rates.
You're forgetting that the prosecutors don't bring cases they think they're going to lose to trial, they either drop the charges or try a plea deal. So you'd entirely expect the success rate to be high.
LOL, that made me chuckle.
People somehow think they're the first one to think of a workaround to a law, when in fact it's been happening since the first law was written down. The law adjusted and if people think they can do one thing, then claim they intended another they have a big surprise coming.
All of these are rather potent hERG inhibitors, yet were approved and widely used before that activity was discovered. Pulling them off the market would have been quite disruptive considering some of them are the only effective treatment for rather serious diseases.
Of course it's a matter of opinion, but I would argue some of these workhorse medications would have had their program killed by the manufacturer (fear the FDA won't approve) or the FDA itself (risk of fatal arrhythmias) if they were developed today.
Yet the risk is managed by flagging the contraindication when combined with other drugs (since the inhibition is often additive).
And the notorious inhaled insulin that Pfizer launch (and horribly failed).
There are many ways to differentiate drugs, not just efficacy.
Plenty of successful drugs from the 50’s had hERG activity, yet the impact on safety was marginal. Today plenty of programs are killed over it.
Increase safety scrutiny does increase safety, but at a cost.
The world does not have unlimited resources. Money spent on one project is money that can’t be spent on another.
The FDA has gotten significantly more strict in its review than it was in the 1960s.
A good example is hERG inhibition as an off-target effect. It’s a receptor on heart muscles and will result in QT prolongation and potential arrhythmias.
It wasn’t discovered until the 1990s. Now every molecule is screened and many are dumped. The impact can vary but there are tons of drugs on the market now that are hERG inhibitors (many discovered after the fact).
It’s a good example of the increased rigor that the FDA applies to everything they review that past trials never had to face.
And as for being screwed, that’s why real estate transactions have title insurance - to cover damages from incorrect titles.
To say the results are suspect is understating things.
We’re talking about financial ruin of the government.
We’re talking about remote areas of the US that have almost no local population.
Why would a company put a cell tower in the middle of federal land where no one is allowed to live?