CharonY

The paper is poorly written and it seems that the journal is one of the weird predatory ones. Even accounting for a certain jargon in social sciences, this article has been especially unclear in its core concepts. Kindly add the last paragraph:

Except you made a series of factually wrong statements, without providing support. I mostly pointed out how the actual process works. I could point out to FDA guidelines, if requested, but the article with the quote you provided also has a paragraph highlighting the requirements (which, again, counters you original assertions).

Except of course that is not happening. Older statistics from 2009-2015 showed a median of less than one death from mass shootings in any European country and 18 per year in the USA. If you want to talk about psychology, it would suggest that Americans have a uniquely different psychological mindset than Europeans. One could extend that to gun violence in general. https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2021/03/24/980838151/gun-violence-deaths-how-the-u-s-compares-to-the-rest-of-the-world And looking at homicide rates, the US has a rate of 6.4/100,000. If we exclude mini-countries, the next highest Western European Country would be France with 1.56. The UK has 1.1 and Germany 0.82 (see wikipedia). In the US, the by far guns are the the murder weapon of choice (https://www.statista.com/statistics/195325/murder-victims-in-the-us-by-weapon-used/). I often feel that folks in the US, especially when they talk about shithole countries or how immigrants allegedly swamp European countries with violence and crime, vastly underestimate how things are in their own neighborhood. So no, other countries do not even come close with murders using alternative weapons. It is not necessarily the guns per se, but clearly, the cult around its use, and the convenience to kill (themselves and/or others), has created a situation that facilitates killings and, again, assuming that Americans don't have highly specific psychological issues, any discussions that tries to ignore a likely central aspect to it, is going to miss the mark. One can ask separate questions here. One is what facilitates violence in any form (bullying is at best only one factor and I suspect that there are so many aspects that trying to find simple narrative is largely futile). The second is why it leads to deaths and/or severe injury, which, given the title, seems to be the original question. I do believe that OP was started from a uniquely American perspective, assuming that somehow mass shootings or equivalent violence is a just part of the course, not realizing that the USA is an outgroup among developed nations.

How about not giving anyone easy access to guns as a starting point.

Yeah, to some degree, but as I mentioned internationals are just a small basis and in contrast to the US. I do not know the Norwegian system, but I think they only recently introduced fees (for public unis). Finland had it for longer, IIRC (around 2017 or so?) but it was still roughly half of what internationals pay in Canada or the US. It doesn't mean that it will stay that way, though the critical element is the base funding from the government. If it keeps pace with costs, I would assume that most European unis would stay course as catering to internationals would only have marginal benefits (and may be offset partially due to increase in administrative course). If, however politicians in their endless neo-liberal wisdom decide to make European unis more like the US, then they will also be in for bad decisions, I'd wager.

Shoot, another skill made obsolete, it seems.

Also the SLEP program is independent of the approval process- it was a cost saving measure and pharma companies have no incentives to start such studies by themselves (unless there was grant to do so- there might be). Then kindly quote the passage where the DOD states that pharma companies willfully shorten the lifetime by greed rather than by a lack of legislation to provide incentives for long-term testing. Specifically, kindly show the passage that supports your claims of: And while at it, please indicate what you mean with "average" in this context.

If you are asking about the process, there are field guides where you go through a kind of flow chart of plant characteristics and arrive at the correct species when you answered all the points. Usually they are writtten for ageographic region, though.

No, you are just misunderstanding how it works. Remember, manufacturer have to provide empirical data for the shelf life of their products and it doesn't make sense for them to figure out the max shelf life (which could be decades) before putting them to market. These are not randomly chosen, to bost sales. Though the market average is likely calculated to provide the optimum balance for profits. Remember, if they determine a longer shelf life, they might be wnle to charge more from their customers. Also, you might have missed the fact earlier in this thread that there is acclelerated program to dtermine longer shelf lives, which would run counter to your assumption that manufacturers want to minimize shelf life.

Actually, I think the main incentives for Unis in the US (and other countries with high tuition rates) for foreign students is to get more money. This incentive is largely absent in European countries (with some exceptions). Conversely, it is easier to build a diverse work group in the US (or Canada for that matter) than in many parts of Europe. Edit: I think it was mentioned before, but the defining difference is funding. In countries like Germany and France University entirely (or close to) funded by government. Conversely, in countries like Canada and USA, even public universities fund about 40% of their income from tuition and student services (e.g., dorms). As a consequence there is business incentives to advertise and cater to students. In Germany, about 70% of salaries goes towards faculty and research/teaching related staff and 30% to administration. In Canada and the US it is about 50:50 and in some cases non-teaching/research positions can go up to 60%. That is why students in the US have access to all kind of support services, whereas in Germany the support service was a mildly confused instructor for 1000 students.

It was quite on a different level, especially compared to the US. Heck, milions into sports teams are part of the effort to attract student, and generate endorsements. Every faculty in the US has advisers and recruiters that go out and attract students. Unless something massively changed, that was not the case in Germany or France.

Are they also present in empty wells?

Or having two sexes for the purpose of procreation.

I think you are confusing the regulations for food with those for medication. For the latter the manufacturer have to have potency testing done and the expiration date is the minimum guaranteed time where they retain potency. They could remain effective for longer. This has been discussed earlier in this thread, though. And roughly a year back.

Is that the tracking dye or is it there only after coomassie stain?

To be fair, a handful of those are actually quite fascinating. The placebo effect study adds an interesting element to the question how it works in the first place (while not fundamentally new, it does at more evidence how expectations mitigate perception). The dead trout study sounds like regular physics to me. Enteral ventilation is.... curious, but I wonder whether it might actually have an application (beyond situations when ventilators are missing).

Yes, and there is a chance that it had an effect. However, most studies have focussed at women, where polarizing effects were seen. Though I suspect that the rape conviction had a limited effect, given that opinions on Trump as a person should have solidified prior.

I didn't come across a study that specifically addressed that question (though I did not look for one, either, so they may be around). But I recall a study in 2016, mostly looking at Clinton's messaging regarding gender equality. There, it was found that fathers who had daughters as their first child had a higher likely to vote Clinton, but I do not recall the effect size. This does seem to be in line with a broader body of literature that showed that in general father of daughters are more likely to support policies that are designed to increase gender equality. However, there is also a counter-effect that some parents (not specifically fathers only, as I recall) of daughters who are pro-Trump exhibit what they called "benevolent sexism", with the strongest indicators being that they wanted to protect their daughters from immigrants (which is just plain old racism). In other words, intersectionality plays an important role here.

These are also great points. The latter has already created the gap in the 2016 election, but obviously SCOTUS amplified it even more. It depends a bit on the poll but stratified by age, the gender gap is the largest for folks older than 50 years (>10%). It has to be noted that support is overall higher for Trump in the older segment. This is a bit different to the far-right in Europe, which, in many countries, is supported by young men. I suspect for older men, Trump can be inspirational and one day, they too hope to become a ripe orange.

Regarding economy, there are two factors. For whatever reasons, the GOP was better in branding themselves pro-economy, despite all the data suggesting otherwise. For Trump, the image is enhanced by his TV show, where he plays a successful businessman. The fact that folks get basic things wrong, is probably not very surprising. With regard to men, there is something worldwide going on, though the specifics vary especially on the age demographics demographics between countries. In many countries, men prefer a person that present themselves as an autocrat. Essentially, an insecure person's idea of a strong person. There is also a strong flavour of sexism among Trump voters, as studies have pointed out. Women, understandably are more likely to feel threatened by these sentiments (though apparently, racism can override these sentiments https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-018-9468-2)

That was actually a fairly unpopular move in Germany. Specifically, this was a move from the EU commission and it was controversial to say the least. The backers were mostly France, Hungary, Poland and Romania. I believe Austria has sued, but not sure what happened. In Germany, the pressure was largely from industry but also politics as they consider it necessary as a bridge technology. In the population, it was widely unpopular, so the opposite of a populist move. That being said, Germany has a long history of a anti-nuclear stance, but it is in many ways an ideological and deeply rooted in the cold war and largely predated carbon emission worries. There were also practical reasons, as NIMBYsm has prevented the creation of long-term solutions for nuclear waste.

Sooo, you are saying that there is no one left in Scotland? Also the German Foreign Office: https://www.dw.com/en/germany-rejects-trumps-energy-claim-mocks-him-over-pets/a-70190020

Oh I have heard that in multiple countries. Definitely not an US exclusive. More a time thingy.

And here I thought my days of getting accused of eating pets were over. Whelp, it looks I can stop pretending and start munching now! In all seriousness though, I am kind of glad that we went from believing this kind of things to ridiculing it.

I suggest you read up on at least two philosophical subjects before drawing a conclusion of a failed search. The first is the overarching subject of scientific realism. It is in itself a fairly complex subject but your assertion it is no-existent, does certainly not reflect anything near a consensus. There are certainly approaches that either dismiss or qualify it, such as social constructivism, and empiricism. Though often it is less a criticism on the existence of an objective reality, but rather the assertion that reality is, evenmin the best case, not accessible and can be seen as a critique on realism, rather than reality. However, many areas of antirealism were eventually abandoned (to my knowledge). In fact, you may want to refer the positivism dispute in the 60s-70s. My memory is somewhat hazy (and others might want to chime in), and I am not sure what the current thought on antirealism is, though the critical elements I was interested did not seem to have continued tractions. Rather another branch of realism became important. Here, I suggest that you read up at least on structural realism. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1746-8361.1989.tb00933.x