> Cant we say this applies to the flu vaccine? This almost validates why I skip it every year.
These two things have literally nothing to do with each other.
> I get sick after getting the flu vaccine and feel pretty bad for 1-3 days
I thought you skipped it every year? So did this happen like, once, and you don't actually have any real basis for comparison or understanding, here? Come on.
And you distinctly remember every single one of those 5-6 years getting sick immediately after, and getting the flu the same year? Again, come on now. This isn't even anecdata, it's just invented memories to push a conclusion you arrived at in your 20s with no actual understanding or basis of knowledge. I assume you think there are no benefits to having gotten the flu vaccine, if you do happen to get the flu after, either, for reasons that are surely backed by strong evidence and subject matter expertise, and not like, Facebook posts.
I don't know why people feel so compelled to invent stories about vaccines they hate but don't even vaguely understand, especially when the creative writing is so poor. It's such a weirdly pervasive thing in healthcare, that people think basic existence is the same as expertise.
> Yes, and to get there we use immunity that is activated on demand. Clearly that was better from evolutionary perspective than preactivation or always-on.
I don't think you understand evolution. Neither needs to be "better" for anything other than survival to reproduction. Evolution isn't min-maxing in a video game.
I don’t think you understand it, if you cannot connect the dots. And of course “survival for reproduction” is oversimplification of what’s actually happening. Chances for survival to reproduce of some individuals are greatly influenced by survival of their relatives in the same group. The traits that help whole group to survive will win in natural selection, including those that extend survival beyond what’s necessary to reproduce to what’s beneficial for the group.
> I don’t think you understand it, if you cannot connect the dots.
This doesn't mean anything.
> Chances for survival to reproduce of some individuals are greatly influenced by survival of their relatives in the same group. The traits that help whole group to survive will win in natural selection, including those that extend survival beyond what’s necessary to reproduce to what’s beneficial for the group.
Which, of course, has absolutely nothing to do with whether current traits are optimized for perfection, or simply sufficient for continued reproduction. Again, evolution isn't min-maxing your video game character. I'm not clear why you have such strident opinions on something you don't understand very well.
Was going to cynically suggest they were just going to merge the two sites and then pretend they had higher user counts at their next earnings, but adding even more (better?) fake content is probably the more plausible idea.
Then why consume the stuff at all? What a weird stance. "They're all vile and evil, but I like watching shows, so whatever, tee hee - piracy is morally good now as long as I have this invented fiction in my head!"
> Knowing that high-level DOD official were betting on us invading Iran does us no good if the only reason we invaded Iran was so they could win their long-odds bet.
Of course it does, if we’re willing to do ever-so-slightly more than jerk off on TikTok about it.
When, specifically, do you think that has happened? I'll wait.
reply