domain:youtube.com?q=domain:youtube.com?page=1
Throwaway05
8m ago
Yes there are general differences in competency and knowledge within the field, but this is mostly the system functioning as designed, if you go to the ED (which most doctors will recommend if their is any concern, because they don't want to get sued), and then the ED whose job it is to make sure you aren't dying will pan scan the hell out of you to make sure you aren't dying (because they don't want to get sued).
In another country they'd probably just send you home or admit you for observation and not do much.
Whether anyone in the ED actually suspected a less typical Mono presentation is very orthogonal to what they actually do.
In any case we already have a surplus of residency spots, posted about that elsewhere.
anti_dan
9m ago
I haven't seen any evidence that puberty blocker hormone prescriptions are down or anything of the sort.
Wokeness has lost a lot of battles, particularly in court recently, but that doesn't mean it stopped trying. Its just more land they still need to conquer.
netstack
Texas is freedom land
12m ago
I don't think anyone is thinking about it that deeply - it's just a denial of difference born of the fear that women will be discriminated against if differences like this are acknowledged* (which you are right would hurt women inclined to full competition with men).
If progressives wanted to avoid the perception that femininity could be dangerous they wouldn't have imposed toxic femininity - e.g. totally unchecked forms of feminine-coded social combat like gossip and cancelling- on everyone, enforced by female HR reps and public figures.
* This is what also leads to the attempts to make big game hunting gender egalitarian. I guess going to hunt == work while doing all of the essential work around the community == 1950s suburban nightmare. So it can't be divided by gender.
Throwaway05
14m ago
You don't train for routine issues, you train to know when an issue isn't a routine issue (and for how to deal with it).
If a patient comes in with abdominal pain, some times they need to fart and sometimes that person is going to die if they don't get transferred to a hospital immediately. You do the training so you don't get this decision making wrong, because society has decided it is unacceptable for us to get this wrong (which...fair).
Complicating this is the way that our regulatory and billing burden constantly pushes back against correct clinical practice, the science and practice are being always updated, and patients are grossly unreliable/muddy the waters.
Do keep in mind that a huge portion of clinical practice is not outpatient practice. What happens in a hospital is wildly different.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
18m ago
@Belisarius @jeroboam @Jiro @crushedoranges @FiveHourMarathon
I think the steelman of this argument (though a lot of steel's involved) looks something like this: select a Republican candidate who's not Donald Trump, because the backlash will be weaker and that has two major effects:
- you might actually get more done to roll back SJ because they're not sabotaging you quite as relentlessly (also because someone younger might be more switched-on)
- raising the CW's temperature is bad for America, because it raises the spectre of a fifth column if there's war.
This is an argument I actually accept and have made here before. It still has some decision-theory issues, and it's Machiavellian, but this is a place where I'd be willing to compromise on that.
Now, of course, this has long since been water under the bridge. Neither Trump nor Harris was a good candidate for CW-temperature purposes, and certainly Harris would not have served conservatives' cultural purposes. I still vaguely preferred her due to Trump's advanced age, but then again I don't have to live in the 'States. But I just felt I should point out that there was at one point a version of this argument that didn't totally suck.
The_Nybbler
Does not have a yacht
22m ago
Detroit and Baltimore are typical examples. Both have areas where blue-affiliated people were moving (though to enclaves), though I don't know if they still do.
Rosencrantz2
34m ago
A conspiracy theory typically involves some shadowy group doing something in a centrally planned way. Your bullet points are all just badly worded versions of perfectly reasonable observations about uncoordinated human behaviour.
A conspiracy theory such as flat earth or Qanon are in a completely different category.
Throwaway05
37m ago
Here's a citation re: open residency spots
https://www.nrmp.org/match-data/2024/06/results-and-data-2024-main-residency-match/
Table 1A - pretty normal for about 5-10% of offered spots to be unfilled.
sun_the_second
38m ago
This argument suffers from linking a thread about Aloy having a bodily feature that women are known to have, rather than any examples of her looking mannish or behaving in a masculine manner.
The_Nybbler
Does not have a yacht
38m ago
Maybe I get this impression just because I avoid leftist spaces like the plague, but it really does seem like the right is more inundated with obvious, low-quality grifters.
Since the left holds the high ground of academia, their grifters are defined as higher-quality. Ta-Nehisi Coates comes to mind. Nikole Hannah-Jones (1619 Project) also.
The_Nybbler
Does not have a yacht
44m ago
The academy is the "high ground" in the sense that a defeated tribe can hide out in the mountains and wage guerilla war until a suitable opportunity arises (like Hilary wanting a way to attack Bernie from the left) - not in the sense that it is the key strategic terrain being fought over.
No, it's the latter also. As @magic9mushroom points out, it can effectively gatekeep a large number of professions, and it can provide anointed Truth.
The_Nybbler
Does not have a yacht
46m ago
I think the real lesson from 2012 is that pundits are wont to proclaim realignments, because they desperately want to live in interesting and historic times.
We've just seen, for only the second time, the re-election of an American President who lost an interim election. We're still seeing the echos of the fall of the Soviet Union (e.g. the Ukraine War). We recently got over a global pandemic causing worldwide oppression. We ARE living in interesting times.
We're going to have a divide, but subgroups have switched from one side to the other before (e.g. blacks in the 1960s) and they will again.
some
59m ago
That choice dismisses the idea that femininity can be dangerous to one's enemies or efficacious for achieving one's goals. It's therefore ironic that the people who made this choice consider it a feminist move.
From my understanding, currently feminist deny there is anything female-coded women are better at. Not that femininity can be used for good or bad, rather they demand be erased. I think this is why cultural products from the more feminists countries, such as the US, feature mannish-looking women, acting in a masculine manner.
If they were to admit that women posses certain strengths which men lack, it would naturally to the question of existence of male strengths which women lack.
RenOS
the mountain passed, the sea in front
1hr ago
AFAIK median ages always include children. So any place that families go to will be much younger than a place with mostly singles, even if the singles themselves are younger.
ControlsFreak
1hr ago
From first principles, active bodily processes to either heat or cool one's flesh likely consume calories. Temperature gradients need to be maintained. In fact, I've seen work posing the question of the effect of indoor environment control on caloric expenditure (if you have electricity doing the work of regulating your environment, you likely have to expend less). Given that most people maintain a body temperature above that of ambient, it is theoretically plausible (even likely) that increased body temperature would increase caloric expenditure.
Of course, the rub usually comes in terms of magnitudes. How big is the effect? A casual scan of the literature doesn't turn up anything all that great. So, I would maintain my personal belief that there is likely a positive effect, but extremely low confidence in any sense of an estimate for magnitude.
Concerning equations, the question always is what it is that you're trying to do. For very small groups, you can go through a very intensive process of measuring all sorts of body characteristics, down to the size of individual organs, and use some pretty detailed estimates to try to get really close. Most people don't do anything like that; it's just too much effort. Instead, people often want to collapse larger-group data into a handful of variables for ease of estimation, knowing that any such effort will inherently have variability and error bars. The equation that you get, and how much variability it has, depends on which type of population you're targeting and which variables you're trying to collapse it down to. Obviously, targeting larger/smaller population types tends to increase/decrease variability; similarly, increasing/decreasing the number of variables (under mild assumptions of them being correlated at all to the dependent variable and not entirely codependent) tends to decrease/increase variability. If you're considering fit and athletically-active populations, a lot of folks recommend the Cunningham equation. It also does not include typical body temperature. I'm not sure what the codependence will look like, what the rough magnitude of the effect will be, and how much additional variability you could cut out by including typical body temperature, just because I'm not aware of anyone who has taken the time and money to specifically explore it.
Tophattingson
1hr ago
The White Genocide conspiracy theory can also be steelmanned as people using an overly-expansive definition of genocide for motivated reasons, akin to the one originally proposed by Lemkin:
Generally speaking, genocide does not necessarily mean the immediate destruction of a nation, except when accomplished by mass killings of all members of a nation. It is intended rather to signify a coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves. The objectives of such a plan would be the disintegration of the political and social institutions, of culture, language, national feelings, religion, and the economic existence of national groups, and the destruction of the personal security, liberty, health, dignity, and even the lives of the individuals belonging to such groups.
And then the flaw of the steelman is that if we were to revert to Lemkin's original wording we'd have to reclassify a lot of stuff that isn't treated as genocide as such, and then would inevitably need a new word to replace genocide to describe the narrower meaning.
Southkraut
A tale Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, Signifying nothing.
1hr ago
Shame about the character.
Have you seen the Three and Four Musketeers movies from the seventies? If so, how does this iteration compare? And if you can speak to it, then where does the 2011 version fit in?
daguerrean
1hr ago
Israel is committing genocide in Gaza
You cannot seriously say that this view is anything like QAnon or Pizzagate. As Ben Garrison was saying, “crank” doesn’t just mean someone that’s wrong.
Someone claiming Israel is committing genocide might be guilty of using an overly expansive definition of genocide for motivated reasons, but there’s nothing crazy about the claim, there’s nothing detached from reality.
Primaprimaprima
Bigfoot is an interdimensional being
1hr ago
It's therefore ironic that the people who made this choice consider it a feminist move.
Well, no, it's not ironic at all actually. The writers know exactly what they're doing, at least at a subconscious level. The idea that femininity could be manipulative and dangerous is a bad look for women, so obviously they would rather not depict such characters.
Feminism as a concrete social movement is about advancing the material and social interests of women (or at least, the interests of a certain subset of women). It's not about "giving people the freedom to explore their identities" or "recognizing the complexity of every human" or any claptrap like that.
hooser
1hr ago
Last year, a new film adaptation of The Three Musketeers came out. (French, Part 1, Part 2)
I watched Part 1 first; the fight scenes are amazing. The scene of the arranged duel between D'Artagnan and the three musketeers that turns into a brawl with the Cardinal's men is particularly fantastic. The style has a flavor of Cinéma vérité in that it's a continuous and somewhat shaky take from a point of view of an unseen witness who keeps turning to catch the action while ducking away from danger, but it deviates from Cinéma vérité in that everyone fighting is super-competent. In this seemingly-continuous shot, one catches glimpse of feats of martial arts moves, all geared towards dispatching the enemy, none are for show. It's very cool and impressive, and worth watching for that scene alone.
Every film adaptation makes decisions about how much of the original material to use, and how closely to stick to the plot. When it does, that's a deliberate choice on the part of those who made the film. Sometimes it's a little change: Porthos is bi; Constance is not married and yet runs a hostel while working in the queen's chambers. It's annoying to have such present-day sensibilities undermine the portrayal of a society very different from mine, but I figured that at least these changes didn't utterly contradict an essential part of the story.
And then I watched Part 2.
Milady from the book is one of my favorite villains. She is smart, adaptable, ruthless, resourceful, flawed, vicious, and above all feminine. She wields femininity as a weapon far more effective then mere swords and muskets. Why dirty your hands, when you can manipulate men to do it for you?
In this adaptation, Milady is a sword-wielding girl-boss.
When an otherwise-good adaptation takes an awesome feminine villain and replaces her with someone who might as well be a man, that's a deliberate choice. That choice dismisses the idea that femininity can be dangerous to one's enemies or efficacious for achieving one's goals. It's therefore ironic that the people who made this choice consider it a feminist move.
Fiction is not associative: strong (female character) != (strong female) character.
self_made_human
Kai su, teknon?
2hr ago
-Ron Brown the Secretary of Commerce who was killed in a plane crash in Croatia. The medical examiner found a execution-style bullet hole in his head that was explained away as a flying rivet.
"Why would you shoot a man before throwing him out of an airplane?".
It makes no sense.
Except that they are still portraying a woman who is manipulative and dangerous. The difference is that their character is dangerous in a direct way (sword-though-your-guts), and manipulative in a direct manly way (overt seduction). Why isn't this character a bad look for women? Is it because she is so unbelievable that the audience disregards her as an obvious fiction (like they would Wonder Woman or She-Hulk)?
If that's the case, maybe that's what makes the original Milady such a compelling character. She is extraordinary, but not beyond the realm of possibility. We can indeed imagine a smart, resourceful, and utterly amoral woman who is a master of feminine wiles.
More options
Context Copy link