nudge

Your original post didn't say anything about giving or not giving explanations though, I replied before you edited it

Lucy, the first mission to explore Trojan asteroids, is scheduled to launch from Cape Canaveral on Saturday for its 12-year-long journey Interesting fact: in the tradition of Voyager, Lucy spacecraft also carries a plaque as a time capsule - not for the "aliens" though, but for our own descendants. The plaque includes messages from prominent thinkers of our time and a diagram showing the positions of the planets on the date of Lucy’s launch.

OK then - "INSUFFICIENT DATA FOR MEANINGFUL ANSWER."

Well, third Unless you've been lapped by the leaders of the race and overtaking the person in 3rd means unlapping yourself, in that case you would still be in the same positon you were before you overtook them

Is this supposed to be a trick question?

Started watching the reboot of The Wonder Years. Loved the original as a kid; this one is the same concept, but from the perspective of a kid from a black family in Alabama in the late 60s. A typical coming of age story with some humour and social realities of the time. Actually enjoying it.

Depends. If you're relatively healthy and of sound mind, and can also take care of yourself, then why not?

Nope, it's an actual chemical reaction Google iodine clock reaction!

Black magic.

Bet he slept on the couch that night...

That's brutal

Crete. What I consider "home" still has its borders closed. There are some signs of improvement though, so hopefully I'll be able to go back early next year at the latest...

This is also exactly what the biggest (so far) international panel of scientists said after reviewing currently available evidence from randomised controlled trials and observational studies published in peer-reviewed journals and pre-print servers a month ago - namely, their reccomendation was that booster doses for the general population are not appropriate at this stage of the pandemic, as current vaccine supplies could save more lives if used in previously unvaccinated populations than if used as boosters in vaccinated populations. They also suggested that if boosters are widely introduced too soon or too frequently, there's a risk that it could cause significant adverse reactions, and that could have huge implications for vaccine acceptance in the future. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(21)02046-8/fulltext

Of course it was... maybe just slightly exaggerated

I hate that song

Nah, you're irreplaceable. I'll probably stop watching movies altogether... Won't be able to deal with the memories

No chance

The joke's on you, I personally refuse to fly Boeing

Yeah, I'd say it's generally a good idea to go along with the position which is supported by a large body of clear and convincing data. As for your second paragraph, I think you're missing the point there a bit. Nobody is accusing scientists of being dishonest or lying, that's not the point. Let's not look for any conspiracies here. As for safety, any drug or vaccine always has certain risks and side effects; no drug or vaccine is 100% safe, and Covid vaccines are no exception. Clinical trials and current real-world data suggests that current vaccines are generally safe and effective in preventing severe course of disease. At the same time, there's also evidence of serious (albeit rare) side effects associated with some vaccines. In general, the benefits of a vaccine should always outweigh its risks - when new data from continuous monitoring and reviews suggests that in some cases it might no longer be true, the recommendations for vaccination should change - hence why in some countries certain vaccines are being restricted for certain age groups (AstraZeneca a while ago due to the risk of TTS, Moderna now due to the risk of myocarditis and pericarditis, etc.). As long as it all stays transparent and the data is easily accessible to everyone in order to make informed decisions, that's perfectly fine. Forcing people into decisions through political power is not fine though, at least not in my books.

I'm talking about pharma corporations in general being greedy and looking to maximise their profits in an industry which can easily become exploitative as it focuses on the health and lives of people. Pretty much all of those corporations have history of extreme price gouging, patent litigation, corruption, fraud, even manipulating scientific publications, falsifying safety data, etc. All that doesn't mean that any vaccine or drug manufactured and sold by a pharma corporation is automatically something bad, dangerous, or unsafe though. In other words, I can be skeptical of the modus operandi of pharmaceutical companies, and still accept and use their products, based on evidence. One doesn't have to exclude the other. Also, I don't "trust the scientists" blindly and don't think anyone should - science can be misinterpreted, scientists can be wrong, data could be flawed, missing or be unaccounted for, it can be influenced by political climate, funding and bias. I do trust the scientific method though, which, when followed correctly, continuously evaluates all newly acquired information without bias, and proper, objective scientific process which accepts that there's always a degree of uncertainty and that new evidence may challenge existing and well-known theories. So in short, I build my opinions and make my decisions based on scientific evidence available to me, and adjust them if needed whenever new evidence becomes available. That's why transparency and balanced reporting is so important. What became very noticeable in recent years is that many people fail to understand that science is a process, not a singular discovery or the source of truth set in stone. Scientific knowledge is never final or absolute, it is constantly changing. Somewhat ironically, there has been a rise of something recently that could be called scientism, which fanatically spins "science" into a dogmatic final law that has to be accepted without questioning, which, in its essence, is the complete opposite of science and more like religion. Ironic, really. But anyway, I'm rambling here a bit.

Don't even remind me that Iceland volcano, my flight got cancelled twice and then the third time it was diverted to another airport 400km away, so we had to spend over 4 hours in the bus and then run through the other airport in order to make it Nah, I will pass this time, I'm glad to finally have a break from travelling Spent a shitload of money on hotels, flights and taxis this year already, and am honestly a bit tired from it all

Big pharma companies have always been massive cunts, to be honest. I have absolutely nothing against them making profit in general, but there's a line to be drawn somewhere... Best recent example - Merck has developed a new promising Covid treatment in form of a pill, and now are selling it at 40 times what it cost to make - that's just fucking mental, especially considering that they received significant funding from the US government for research and development. Greed has no limits.

I think it's primarily a US issue, as if I'm not mistaken, there it's only the vaccination status that matters. Whereas in Europe, recovery from Covid is considered equal to vaccination in terms of having immunity and thus being exempt from testing/quarantine/other restrictive measures. Every country I've been to this year accepted proof of recovery instead of vaccination; it's also a part of EU digital Covid certificate.

"Exposing the truth"... Why so much sensationalism? Israeli scientists have openly published their study results demonstrating that having COVID once confers much greater immunity than a vaccine, it's not exactly a secret.

Just as evil as filling some donuts with mustard instead of jam and serving them alongside the regular ones during Karneval