site banner
Advanced search parameters (with examples): "author:quadnarca", "domain:reddit.com", "over18:true"

Showing 25 of 242186 results for

domain:x.com

I occasionally read groups for Ukrainian refugees in Finland, and they also keep saying that healthcare was better in Ukraine. When looking to it a bit more, they often seem to mean that it's easier to go there with an intention of getting some specific treatment or meds and get those than in Finland, where the system is consciously built on gatekeeping and the avoidance of unnecessary treatments, so as to save in costs (to the taxpayer).

I honestly don't even see how it's in America's interest to enforce this current status quo on Europe. Would America have blinked if Merkel never changed her mind on Syrian refugees? My impression is that most Americans don't really care and even the atlanticists have other concerns.

It doesn't seem that different from the same tangle of laws and ideology that makes solving the homeless problem in the US so intractable, which certainly can't be blamed on America's hegemon.

The cases in which the child’s head is fully destroyed are not even presented to medical examiners, according to the lead author’s tweet linked in my sub-commented update. This means that the doctors are presented with all gunshot wounds precluding those gunshot wounds which have so destroyed the head that medical intervention is obviously impossible.

Per the same update, the NYT presented the photographs and C-Scan images to a number of medical professionals. “multiple, independent experts in gunshot wounds, radiology and pediatric trauma, who attested to the images’ credibility”. I trust that more than you, or “random Twitter user with Ukrainian flag in username claiming to be ballistics expert”.

What percentage of surface area of the body is the head and torso, and how does the movement of the limbs affect their statistical chance of catching stray rounds

We know from shootings in America that stray bullets or inaccurate shots don’t magnetize especially to the head and chest. The lead author previously worked in Flint and Haiti, and he found the proportion of these wounds to be unusual. And, noting the above, the actual proportion of headshots is higher, as the doctors didn’t see the head implosion cases.

as the effect of people poking their heads out to see what's happening

Should the IDF be shooting children who peak out their head in a highly dense urban environment?

Is this calculation well established in the military literature?

Let’s assume it is not well-established in the military literature because it has not been researched. Does this mean we turn off all reasoning and thinking until the military studies it? No. We make the best extrapolation from the best available evidence. If the IDF is shooting a terrorist and a bullet inadvertently pierces a child, the likelihood that it lands as a headshot is low, both due to the surface area of the head and the fact that two humans can’t stand in the same spot at the same time.

tongue bath of it, bespeaks nothing

The Shakespearean language really helps your argument.

With all that said, we can indeed consult some available literature on the site of injury %s in military injuries and stray bullet injuries. 6% and 16.1% of stray bullets wound the head and chest respectively in the context of insurgent military activity (Libyan civil war).

Although the acceptance of "life will be better if I can move myself over there" without necessary direct evidence

What makes you think there isn't direct evidence?

It'd be one thing if we were talking about middle class Indians piling into an inordinately expensive and crowded Toronto apartment and a shitty mall degree. But I think most asylum seekers to Europe are probably right that it's a better deal.

I'm curious, why do you hold CoH2 in such esteem? Me and my friend group used to play both CoH1 and 2, but the main reason we switched was just that 2 had higher player numbers at the time (which is typical for newer games). At least it wasn't worse in gameplay, but imo it also wasn't better, either.

They have a challenge called "Squid Game," right?

I assumed the "pen" was short for "penis."

are they mostly using Tavor's still?

No, most units moved back to M4’s, or an m-16 variant for rear units. You may see an Arad at places, and IIRC the border guard is trying out M7s. I haven’t seen a full-size Tavor in a while. Some reserve units still used micro-Tavors (X95) which is my personal favorite.

I don’t know if tongue in cheek but I hard a discussion with someone on this esteemed website where I pointed out that rounding errors add up. If you can kill 15 of these kind of projects that’s 300b and real money.

Why might you not have ADHD?

This whole thing, the NYT and your tongue bath of it, bespeaks nothing so much as two people who have never seen terminal ballistics talking ridiculous.

We should expect that, if these children are shot because they have caught stray bullets aimed elsewhere, that most of the children would be shot in places other than their head and chest.

Now why would that be? What percentage of surface area of the body is the head and torso, and how does the movement of the limbs affect their statistical chance of catching stray rounds? What's the effect of people poking their heads out to see what's happening? Is this calculation well established in the military literature? Because I've never heard of it.

And how exactly does one calculate that someone had been shot only once in the head? A rifle round through the skull will tend to pop the whole thing open like a smashed pumpkin. Could have been shot once, could have been shot fifty times. Could have not been a bullet at all, but a rock or chunk of shrapnel from an explosion. Good luck telling the difference.

This is the sort of thing that NYT journalists find impressive, the fact that you do as well speaks more to you than to anything going on in any war anywhere.

Then you ignored past evidence. As such, no reason to link it again when you can easily see for yourself if you search.

This isn’t how it works. You’re asserting that there’s a normalized phenomenon of Hamas threatening or pressuring the testimony of temporary Western medical workers. There have been hundreds, perhaps more than a thousand Western medic workers who have volunteered in Gaza over the years.

In order for external actors to operate within Gaza, they must be permitted by whichever authority controls access to the ground the organization wishes to work on and from. Organizations which do not cowtow, do not gain or retain access. This is basic access-control policy.

As per a previous comment, it was the WHO and a major American medical association which called for doctors willing to go to Gaza. Now you are alleging that the WHO is controlled by Hamas? Or are you alleging that Hamas is interviewing every doctor who passes into the territory? This also needs evidence. If this occurred, we would know about it, per above.

they are recruited from the sort of (permitted) organizations that include a higher number of doctors who would be willing to say they saw shot children on a survey if it benefited the palestinian cause

Again, you are making a claim that is empirical. Are you saying Hamas has a hand in selecting doctors? We need a source on that. Are you saying that doctors would only work in Gaza because they are pro-Hamas? This is disputed by major medical organizations wishing to send doctors into Gaza. You are also conflating sympathy to the Palestinian people with the wilingness to publicly lie about the health of children to benefit Hamas. You have to imagine all of the doctors who are not radical pro-Israel supporters, but instead focused on mitigating the harm affecting children. That’s going to be a lot of doctors. Doctors willing to volunteer are predisposed to care about the plight of children, rather than the ideology of political organizations in obscure parts of the world.

It's both amusing and slightly scary that even Republicans are now proposing abortion laws that would be considered (far-)leftwing in most of Europe.

It’s true that if you come back to Ghana with your Stanford Econ PhD then they may well give you a job at the central bank, but it’s also true that if you’re the kind of Ghanaian wealthy enough to go through 10+ years of tertiary education in the US you’re probably pretty well connected in the local ruling class anyway.

In many ways it’s nicer being a developing country PMC making $100k a year than an American making $400k a year. You have (more) servants, the cost of living is low etc. But a big reason people return is the same regardless of wealth, which is that home is home and people like being surrounded by friends and family in the community they grew up in, whereas life as a foreigner (even a wealthy one) involves a baseline higher level of mental stress because of the unfamiliar environment.

There is also the possibility that the underlying cause for the bias could have abated. Support for Trump can have normalised in poll answering demographics for instance.

I still find it likely that some underestimation is going on but I wouldn't be surprised if the poll aggregate is largely accurate or even overestimating Trump.

While I fully agree with your general point and thrust of argument, particularly in overall polling differences compared to previous elections, the current leads in key states are still well within normal margins of error. We are in various cases talking about leads of 0.X% when a margin of error can be wide.

While I fully agree that based on historical patterns this would be a shoe in, there is a point that this assumes no changes in how polls were conducted between election cycles to try and improve their accuracy. There are many interests- commercial, strategic, and political-competitor- that have incentives to try and improve polling accuracy, and so it's not good to assume the same errors will continue to be repeated in the same way.

New equivalent errors may be introduced, and there are even conspiratorial takes on why polls may be wrong (such as presenting polls claiming a much closer race to support the effectiveness of future cheating by reducing the amount of cheating needed to plausibly 'narrowly' win), but these would have to be made and I don't think you or most other people are making them.

We should similarly expect a higher number of cases of multiple bullet wounds, as in the case of their being shot due to crossfire fighting.

Why? Being hit by one stray bullet is pretty rotten luck. Two or more seems much less likely.

Note that any Palestinian child shot or grazed by a bullet is going to be sent to the hospital

With Gaza's limited resources, during a war? Maybe, but I don't think this is a safe assumption.

You also have to account for the possiblity that a) at least some of the doctors are lying, and b) the worst cases may have been sent to American doctors either for propaganda purposes or because of their better skills.

Note that one of the X-rays shows a bullet that seems to have entered at a path nearly perpendicular to the top of the skull, implying either that the child was shot while lying down, likely by a stray bullet while lying in bed, or perhaps even by a bullet fired up into the air and coming back down, a phenomenon associated with the Arabic tradition of celebratory gunfire. Another shows a bullet that seems to have entered through a downward path about 45 degrees below parallel, which is hard to explain with a sniper shooting at a distance, and again more consistent with a bullet shot into the air and coming back down.

Here are the problems with that: I don’t see evidence of that happening in the past;

Then you ignored past evidence. As such, no reason to link it again when you can easily see for yourself if you search.

Hamas would like to maintain access to top medical care, which would be jeopardized if they began to threaten medical providers;

Hamas is not prioritizing civilian access to top medical care over things that jeopardize access to top medical care.

This is demonstrated when it regularly does things such as turn medical centers into military bases and steals aid from the public and co-opts local palestinian medical organizations into logistics and propaganda associates, all of which decreases the quality and availability of medical care. Hamas does them anyway.

Hence, there is no reason to believe maintaining access to top medical care prioritizes goals (such as control of the Gazan territory) that could be advanced by threatening medical providers (who could complicate narratives if allowed to be outspoken, but whose shortage serves as a useful propaganda tool for soliciting international sympathy).

Note that this is paralleled with Hamas's use of interior ministry regulations and enforcement of journalism coverage from within the strip, which itself has had observable not-back effects as while these rules nominally don't apply to organizations like the Assoicated Press, the reliance of these organizations on people within the strip, and thus subject to Hamas retaliation, shapes which relationships with the outside world can form in the first place.

Most of the volunteer doctors are not making a career in the Gaza Strip, so there is no reason for them to cowtow to the ideology of Hamas;

Sure there is- access to Gaza in the first place.

In order for external actors to operate within Gaza, they must be permitted by whichever authority controls access to the ground the organization wishes to work on and from. Organizations which do not cowtow, do not gain or retain access. This is basic access-control policy.

the very same survey we are talking about has 20% of the doctors say they didn’t see shot children — so why did this 20% say that? Where’s the evidence that 20% were harassed or asked to leave?

You are reversing the cause and effect of a filtering process, and in turn running into the issue of the nature of small-scale surveys which you are conflating with the filtering effect.

The filtering effect is a pre-survey effect. The effect of filtering is not claiming that 20% of the survey respondents would be asked to leave after saying 20% say that they didn't see shot children. The filtering effect can be something like that 80% of doctors surveyed are willing to say they saw shot children because they are recruited from the sort of (permitted) organizations that include a higher number of doctors who would be willing to say they saw shot children on a survey if it benefited the palestinian cause, but also would not opine on who shot the victims, especially if doing so might work against the cause.

Which goes into the data on who was doing the shooting, rather than who was shot, which not even the NYT respondents cited claim were Israeli shooters.

Except even in this case there is a far more mundane explanation for radical scores, which is survey structure of small samples.

The author is writing on the basis of surveys that includes themselves and people/organizations they know. Groups of people who know eachother are also groups of people who have a stronger tendency to have heard about the same things, often from eachother. This is how you get cultural / information silos where people can get influenced by group thought dynamics that do not have to reflect reality, and why establishing the representativeness of a sample population is critical.

What you presented is a story but the story has nothing evidencing it. The rest of your comment is just trying to obfuscate the fact that innocent Palestinian children ought to obtain medical care.

Medical care for being victimized by whom?

Again, I return to the data points that not only do the shooting-cases not claim that the shooters were Israelis, but that the majority of the article is focused on medical consequences of things like malnutrition and psychological damage that are the responsibility of Hamas, who have been stealing aid, compromising medical organizations, and perpetrating the conflict.

Which, while you certainly had a... take on the evilness of da joos, seemed rather light on equivalent religious analysis on the rulers of gaza.

I'm trying to understand PDCAAS/DIAAS protein quality numbers. Many sources give DIAAS score for potato protein higher than its PDCAAS and higher than some animal proteins. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/fsn3.1809

in general, how important are these scores?

Yes, and you seem to be implying there's something strange about that?

If the bias is consistently in the same direction, I find it unlikely that they are actually trying to correct it. I'd have to look up the post I'm citing, but I think they were talking about Sweden where their right-populist party was underestimated during one election, overestimated in the next one, and finally estimated correctly in the one after that. This is what you'd expect to see if they were trying.

That Hamas is utilizing 8 year old child soldiers to lob grenades is a level of propaganda that the IDF hasn’t even reached yet.

You seem to have misunderstood the point of the opening, which was to contest your characterization of the limit of child soldiers, which itself wasn't limited to Hamas. A child soldier is not a 16 year old. A child soldier is a child who is used in the function of war, regardless of their age, and as such age alone does not disprove someone someone from being a combatant unless the age is so low that they physically cannot.

There has been no information coming out of Israel that Hamas is using preteen child soldiers in their operations, neither is there drone or other footage which would immediately shift public opinion in favor of Israel. This isn’t happening.

Sure it is. It's denied and disparaged as Israeli propaganda or otherwise that it shouldn't matter because children, but it is in no way hard to find information of Hamas using pre-teen children as human shields to military operations, of using preteens as messengers or conveyers of military goods, of Hamas opening fire into crowds of civilians which would involve pre-teens, of stealing and depriving the Gazan population of resources which lead to murder over or due to a lack of resources, of Hamas deliberately murdering families of dissidents for the purpose of intimidating the populace, and otherwise setting conditions in a warzone in which people are regularly shot for less-than-maximally-nefarious-reasons by maximally-nefarious jews.

This is not true. Emergency nurses will deal with children shot in all places.

There are two problems with this contestation, both demonstrating separate logical errors leading to data issues.

First is a dynamic which can be summarized as 'tell me you didn't think about triage without telling me you didn't think about triage.' Triage itself is screening function when medical issues over overwhelming and resources- included the doctors themselves- are limited. Not all injuries are emergencies to a triage, and in turn not all injuries will go to emergency treatment in the first place. If you then cite numbers of medical emergency cases, you are starting to count after triage has already filtered relevant contextual numbers.

Second, the NYT isn't citing a representative sample of emergency nurses- or even exclusively emergency nurses- in the first place. It was specifically citing people who were willing to claim observation of children being shot, which is itself a selection bias. '100% of the people I cited claimed cases of X' means nothing on a statistical when you are not citing people who do not support X, and that's if you had a representative survey basis in the first place, which the NYT opinion presenter does not.

As would surgeons, parademics, and critical care doctors. Any child shot is going to see these professionals. There’s not some “child shot in the head super-specialist” at these clinics. I mean, maybe neurosurgeon, but that’s not even a listed specialty in the article.

Thank you for admitting another issue in the article's data base, I was hoping to lead you to that point.

Yes, the lack of professional characterization is a separate issue for the brilliance of the research, as it conflates the medical supporters who might have a more representative understanding of general child injuries as part of the triage process (who, in the article, aren't even claiming Israeli snipers or the such in the first place) from more specialized medical experts whose expertise in specific things- like, say, chest surgeries- who would only be under a significant selective survivorship bias of what they are exposed to (both the nature of the injury, but also operating on people who survive long enough to get to them).

This conflation of category of medical experts, in turn, can be and is used to conflate the different viewpoints to distorting effect. As the viewpoints of people with wider-but-less-serious issues are presented in equal ground with more narrow perspective that are narrower-but-more-severe (because the person in question is primarily dealing with the most severe cases). This is a technique to shape audience perception by insinuating that the equivalence of the reports suggests that the conflated categories are a single category that is both more common and more severe on average than the spread actually is.

But since relevant medical and surgical specialties do exist, and the volunteers of any previous or accumulated experience will be allocated those cases as a matter of course, we can infer from organizational practicalities (and some parts of the article itself) that there is a relevant degree of case selection filtering going on.

Who do you believe is the lower specialty on whom they drop off the children only merely shot in the abdomen or thigh?

Or the hand or the foot or the arm?

The person with clearly vestigial wounds is clearly the lower priority and will receive more limited care by less trained or specialized people. A surgeon who specializes in opening up chest cavities to remove things that can kill people is not going to spend their time resetting dislocated joints or applying splints, when that level of care can be provided by a more-numerous non-surgeon whose use in that role can free up the surgeon to do surgeries.

Now, if you wish to make the argument that the Gazan medical situation is not so dire such that there is no need to triage and thus more specialized medical professionals see a representative selection of wounded children...

Could be an old CT scan from a casualty of one of those Arab weddings where they fire guns in the air indiscriminately.

It all depends on their class. For example, if you're a working class family from flyover Russia or Ukraine (or China or India), moving to a Western country, even to a flyover location just like yours will be a massive boost to the quality of life.

On the other hand, you lose all the benefits of your lifestyle if you emigtate as a PMC, with a few exceptions like joining a faang on a faang salary. Others have enumerated them already.

I may be one of those people, but I do consider all rights as privileges. Right means entitlement absent of any duty, which means somebody else has duty providing you with said right. Even original US set of rights in American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man gives government duties through law to to enforce these rights privileges.

In this case right for asylum means nothing else other than duty of you fellow citizens to accommodate foreigners. If society as a whole refuses these duties, then said "right" is dead. Duties related to rights are not enforced by god who strikes you with lightning and they are not enshrined in trajectories of planets in Solar system. They are social conventions and they are direct results of what duties citizens are willing and capable to undertake - we have all seen what happened to human rights during COVID for example.