On Friday May 10th, I sent a Direct Message to Mr-MC-Kitty requesting to Regard Abusing Community Guidelines in the Online Internet Websites. also, Cut Off HazeltheVixen Carol the Puspin Cat is now Regarding the Community Guidelines Abuse in the Internet Online Websites including Cutting Off Hazel the Vixen. Possibly, Mister MC...
Edit to say because I kinda feel bad now: I have nothing against English teachers! Please don’t send your mafia of learned lit nerds after me! …Or do, lit nerds are hot.
you laugh until your STEM-only software engineer tries to write marketing copy, he circumnavigated the marketing department and sent the ads at a conference straight to the contact without getting it approved.
I can’t post the text as it’ll dox me but here’s an approximation, about running, but instead imagine it’s a software product
TLDR: I am afraid the Seraphis upgrade might make it possible for governments to pass legislation demanding all businesses and exchanges to collect wallet view keys from users for any and all transactions involving Monero and maintain records, hence allowing state sponsored blockchain analysis companies the abilty to ‘Trace’...
Mehr #Sicherheit für Kinder durch KI: #EduPin gewinnt 1. Platz beim Hochschulwettbewerb für verantwortungsvollen Umgang mit #KI. Der EduPin ist ein ansteckbarer digitaler Button, der Kinder in Echtzeit vor Gefahrenstellen warnt.
move IT Tube is a non-commercial, ad-free Video Streaming Plattform for private and personal use. You can use it for education, documentation, news and hobbies, all non-commercial and non-advertising.
You’re the one screeching against established science. You’re the one saying that “the data doesn’t support the conclusions” while refusing to actually even make an argument.
“My theory”
You don’t seem to understand what the word means. That’s a hypothesis, and one not supported by any science, despite you saying that the conclusions of a peer-reviewed study isn’t supported by the data they have, that the data in fact supports your notion, but you still can’t seem to show how or why?
So your argument is “if you’re not exposed to smoke, then you’re not harmed by it”? Wow. What a great argument. Unfortunately, when you’re exposed to smoke, no matter the amount, it is harmful. This has been proven time and time and time again, but despite you childishly arguing against it, you haven’t even tried looking if there’s data available on it, because you know of course there is and it all proves you wrong.
The burden of proof is on you. You’re simply unable to produce any supporting evidence for any of your anti-vaxxer, flat-earth level garbage, instead preferring to write vague pseudointellectual garbage. :D
#No level of smoking or exposure to secondhand smoke [SHS] is safe. Even at the lowest detectable levels of exposure, we could detect changes in gene expression within the cells lining the airways
#It is widely recognized through scientific evidence that there is no safe level of exposure to SHS
“Widely recognised.”
Almost as if that’s what the evidence points towards and your pathetic little “b-b-b-b-but what about if you’re only outdoors and you’re 100 meters upwind from the closest smoker so then you’re not exposed to smoke at all so then it’s safe so there is actually a safe level of second hand smoke exposure which is literally to not be exposed at all and that’s my mighty smart argument that I’m now making and the fact that there’s a literal library full of studies which prove that there is no safe level of second hand smoke is completely irrelevant as I’m not even gonna look at it I’m just gonna pretend like I won the argument I didn’t even actually manage to make”
No evidence of what? That second hand smoke is harmful? Are you on meth?
The studies don’t show that. They merely assert that, without the data to back it up.
“No, the science is wrong, and me, a childish person on a pseydoanonymous forum ASSERTING the science is wrong is more credible than the science they use to show their conclusions are backed up by the data. Oh and don’t even try to get me to actually comment on what I think is wrong in the data, because I haven’t even read it.” - You
That’s absolutely an argument, and it’s not grasping at anything.
Yes, it is grasping. Because you’re not even refuting that SHS is harmful, you’re trying to assert that outdoors, there is no SHS, by trying to show concentrations measured. So implicitly, you’re admitting that any SHS IS harmful, because of course you are, because we all know that to be true, lol.
And you still haven’t sent any proof.
My stomach can’t take much more of this :DDD
See, you already ignored the studies when I only quote their conclusions and the most important parts of them. What on Earth are you gonna do when I paste the entire study here?
This is from this exact thread, 3 comments earlier:
#No level of smoking or exposure to secondhand smoke [SHS] is safe. Even at the lowest detectable levels of exposure, we could detect changes in gene expression within the cells lining the airways
#It is widely recognized through scientific evidence that there is no safe level of exposure to SHS
“Widely recognised.”
Show me ANY STUDY WHATSOEVER that says that there is a SAFE level of second hand smoke. Please. I’ve been waiting and asking for several comments now. Oh and, a bit too ashamed to answer the comment where you talk about “you need to understand there’s a huge bias with tobacco…” when I replied to it with this? www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3490543/
#Inventing Conflicts of Interest: A History of Tobacco Industry Tactics
By the early 1960s—despite categorical research findings indicating the harms of smoking—a significant “controversy” had arisen (at the behest of the tobacco industry) over the validity and meaning of these findings. Indeed, given the widespread acceptance of the conclusion, especially among those who had analyzed and evaluated the research most closely, the persistence of debate about the harms of smoking is a striking demonstration of the powerful impact of the tobacco industry’s public relations campaign. The industry insistence, at the direction of Hill & Knowlton, on the notion of no proof and the need for more research was an inspired if cynical manipulation of the natural tendencies within science to encourage skepticism and seek more complete answers to important questions.
Completely unlike what you’re doing, amirite? :DDDDDD That’s what is so hilarious; you’re using century old rhetoric. It’s like arguing someone who’s genuinely insistent that “reefer madness” is a thing :DDD
You haven’t linked a single study of any sort. You just keep stomping your foot and saying “NYAAAH NO NO NO THEY’RE WRONG AND I DON’T NEED TO TELL YOU HOW THEY’RE WRONG THEY’RE JUST ANGRY AT SMOKERS NYAAAAH”
“No, the science is wrong, and me, a childish person on a pseydoanonymous forum ASSERTING the science is wrong is more credible than the science they use to show their conclusions are backed up by the data. Oh and don’t even try to get me to actually comment on what I think is wrong in the data, because I haven’t even read it.” - You
That’s absolutely an argument, and it’s not grasping at anything.
Yes, it is grasping. Because you’re not even refuting that SHS is harmful, you’re trying to assert that outdoors, there is no SHS, by trying to show concentrations measured. So implicitly, you’re admitting that any SHS IS harmful, because of course you are, because we all know that to be true, lol.
And you still haven’t sent any proof.
My stomach can’t take much more of this :DDD
See, you already ignored the studies when I only quote their conclusions and the most important parts of them. What on Earth are you gonna do when I paste the entire study here?
This is from this exact thread, 3 comments earlier:
#No level of smoking or exposure to secondhand smoke [SHS] is safe. Even at the lowest detectable levels of exposure, we could detect changes in gene expression within the cells lining the airways
#It is widely recognized through scientific evidence that there is no safe level of exposure to SHS
“Widely recognised.”
Show me ANY STUDY WHATSOEVER that says that there is a SAFE level of second hand smoke. Please. I’ve been waiting and asking for several comments now. Oh and, a bit too ashamed to answer the comment where you talk about “you need to understand there’s a huge bias with tobacco…” when I replied to it with this? www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3490543/
#Inventing Conflicts of Interest: A History of Tobacco Industry Tactics
By the early 1960s—despite categorical research findings indicating the harms of smoking—a significant “controversy” had arisen (at the behest of the tobacco industry) over the validity and meaning of these findings. Indeed, given the widespread acceptance of the conclusion, especially among those who had analyzed and evaluated the research most closely, the persistence of debate about the harms of smoking is a striking demonstration of the powerful impact of the tobacco industry’s public relations campaign. The industry insistence, at the direction of Hill & Knowlton, on the notion of no proof and the need for more research was an inspired if cynical manipulation of the natural tendencies within science to encourage skepticism and seek more complete answers to important questions.
Completely unlike what you’re doing, amirite? :DDDDDD That’s what is so hilarious; you’re using century old rhetoric. It’s like arguing someone who’s genuinely insistent that “reefer madness” is a thing :DDD
You haven’t linked a single study of any sort. You just keep stomping your foot and saying “NYAAAH NO NO NO THEY’RE WRONG AND I DON’T NEED TO TELL YOU HOW THEY’RE WRONG THEY’RE JUST ANGRY AT SMOKERS NYAAAAH”
Here are a few things the studies behind these URL’s say:
#No level of smoking or exposure to secondhand smoke [SHS] is safe. Even at the lowest detectable levels of exposure, we could detect changes in gene expression within the cells lining the airways
#It is widely recognized through scientific evidence that there is no safe level of exposure to SHS
I find it hard to believe that you didn’t actually understand my previous comment, but who am I to say that the cognitively challenged don’t browse Lemmy? But if you made it this far in the comment, then you’re probably not challenged that severely, so we can both admit that you’re just pretending not to understand, because you’re willfully ignoring the evidence. Exactly like Flat Earthers and anti-vaxxers do in every debate they engage in.
The story of the tobacco “controversy” and the industry’s deliberative attempts to disrupt science is now, fortunately, fairly well known. In large measure, this story emerged only as a result of whistle blowers and litigation that led to the revelation of millions of pages of internal tobacco documents that both laid out this strategy and documented its implementation.39 But what has often gone overlooked in the assessment of the tobacco episode was the highly articulated, strategic character of seizing the scientific initiative, the engineering of science. This, however, was a factor well understood by John Hill and the public relations teams that advised the companies. They carefully documented what the scientific investment would buy and how best for the companies to protect and defend that investment.
“What you need to understand… is that there’s a huge bias against tobacco” - you :DDD
> INDIANAPOLIS >> One woman was killed and five other people were wounded when an argument escalated to gunfire at a Waffle House restaurant in Indianapolis early today, police said.
OC Regarding Abuse of Community Guidelines
On Friday May 10th, I sent a Direct Message to Mr-MC-Kitty requesting to Regard Abusing Community Guidelines in the Online Internet Websites. also, Cut Off HazeltheVixen Carol the Puspin Cat is now Regarding the Community Guidelines Abuse in the Internet Online Websites including Cutting Off Hazel the Vixen. Possibly, Mister MC...
I learned so much (lemmy.world)
Edit to say because I kinda feel bad now: I have nothing against English teachers! Please don’t send your mafia of learned lit nerds after me! …Or do, lit nerds are hot.
Paranoid about the Seraphis upgrade
TLDR: I am afraid the Seraphis upgrade might make it possible for governments to pass legislation demanding all businesses and exchanges to collect wallet view keys from users for any and all transactions involving Monero and maintain records, hence allowing state sponsored blockchain analysis companies the abilty to ‘Trace’...
"No, seriously. All those things Google couldn't find anymore? Top of the search pile. Queries that generated pages of spam in Google results? Fucking pristine on Kagi – the right answers, over and over again." (pluralistic.net)
OC 180 No Comply and probably my longest manual (tube.spdns.org)
move IT Tube is a non-commercial, ad-free Video Streaming Plattform for private and personal use. You can use it for education, documentation, news and hobbies, all non-commercial and non-advertising.
New Zealand repeals world-first smoking ban passed by Jacinda Ardern (www.independent.co.uk)
Reversal of smoking ban criticised as ‘shameful’ for lacking evidence...
TNA NO SURRENDER Discussion Thread 02/23/24
Tonight, TNA No Surrender is LIVE from New Orleans, Louisiana! The card includes:...
Pseudo-history lecture (feddit.de)