I am not sure that applies if Apple is deliberately withholding the money. Presumably they are making some claims as to breaking of laws or violating a policy. Enscheatment is more about forgotten money. The developer is very aware of their lack of access.
We're having similar problem with Nitrite salts in Ham, not as deadly though. It shows how we're willing to make things look better just to sell more and at the detriment of health.
There is no such thing as neutrality or unbiased views, we are humans, everything we do or say is filled with bias. Claiming for Wikipedia to "stay neutral" is a bias itself.
They do as good of a job as any of us in trying to stay neutral.
Larry just comes across as pissed off. He complains that Obama's article doesn't discuss, or discuss enough for his liking, "Hilary's email servers".
He complains that it doesn't discuss Obamagate in any detail. Possibly because it was essentially a baseless accusation/conspiracy from Trump that when investigated, showed no evidence?
He complains that Trump's page contains too many "negative words", in sections like his "Public Profile" (and then complains that Obama doesn't have a section titled exactly the same, though he does have "Cultural and Political Image").
He complains that the article on abortion describes it as a very safe medical procedure, "a claim that is questionable on its face" - which is why the article links to citations, unlike Larry, who just rebuts with "conservatives don't think so".
He then goes on to claim that "Wikipedia holds positions that some scientific minorities reject" around concepts such as the MMR vaccine, global warning, chiropractic and homeopathy. That latter one is the easiest, as there is zero assertion based in physics that a substance can be imbued with the "essence" of something when diluted to the point where it would take multiple universes worth of molecules to get one original molecule in the final substance. Sanger wholly fails to give a valid reason why anyone should give homeopathic dilutions an equal weight to the rest of our body of work on medicine and physics other than "bias!"
> He complains that the article on abortion describes it as a very safe medical procedure, "a claim that is questionable on its face"
So far the only good argument I've seen for abortions being very unsafe from people ideologically opposed to them is that they're unsafe by definition because they lead to a person dying (in which case, yeah, but that's not what people normally mean by "safe").
Also, as with other culture war medical topics, the danger of the cure needs to be assessed relatively to the danger of the "disease". Pregnancies are not safe. Giving birth is extremely not safe, regardless of method. Heck, even menstrual cycles aren't safe. Even conception can lead to death in the case of ectopic pregnancies, not to mention the health risks of sexual intercourse itself (which is why it's called "safer sex", not "safe sex"). So we need to take those into account as a baseline when talking about the safety of medical procedures or drugs interfering with these. Those on the side that insists on making it a culture war topic usually deny or downplay that baseline risk while widely exaggerating the risk of the procedure.
This goes for abortions, hormone suppressors, vaccines, premarital sex and many more. But of course it isn't about the medical risk. They'd still be opposed even if it were perfectly 100% safe (which can't even be said about ordinary daily activities like using the toilet, walking or sitting). The main "risk" they are concerned about is moral, and that can't really be argued with.
> They do as good of a job as any of us in trying to stay neutral.
Not even close. Anything even close to political has a clear slant to it, from actual article wordings to allowed sources to build the articles off of.
Every bit of content has a POV, there is no getting around that. Neutral POV is the Wikipedia ideal - one they work towards but will never reach. They do as good a job as anybody at it.
Every bit of content has multiple POVs, and when you continuously present only the POVs associated with one part of the political spectrum, that's an avoidable bias.
> Actual encyclopedias do a much better job of it.
I can't validate that statement and neither can you. You didn't even say which one. Setting aside the fact that traditional encyclopedias aren't part of the internet that we are discussing in this thread, I will at least give you that the motivations of a traditional encyclopedia are more clear than the amorphous network of people who maintain Wikipedia.
I have a 1936 set of Encyclopedia Britannica on the shelf, you should read some of the articles in that.
Honestly I think it should be biased when it comes to politics. It should be unbiased in terms of evidence. If some narrative has no evidence, but a strong political following, that political following should contribute zero weight to the validity of the narrative. No evidence is no evidence.
There's certain "radioactive" topics on Wikipedia where it's almost impossible for contrarian views to get a fair hearing: evolution, vaccination, nationalism, etc.
Contrarian views on many topics are not backed by facts but by emotion. A collection of knowledge is not obligated to let contrarian viewpoints with no scientific basis share the same space as factual coverage of a topic.
This is the problem I see far too often with people who criticize Wikipedia for their NPOV policy.
Take this passage from the vaccination page for example:
> Some studies have claimed to show that current vaccine schedules increase infant mortality and hospitalization rates;[103][104] those studies, however, are correlational in nature and therefore cannot demonstrate causal effects, and the studies have also been criticized for cherry picking the comparisons they report, for ignoring historical trends that support an opposing conclusion, and for counting vaccines in a manner that is "completely arbitrary and riddled with mistakes".[105][106]
If you go to the vaccination page and look at the cited studies, you'll see they are peer-reviewed studies in real scientific journals. But a Wikipedia editor went in and modified the language to cast doubt on it (see here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vaccination&diff=...).
All statistical analyses are "correlational in nature", so there's no reason why that should weaken the findings of this study, and the source used to accuse the study of "cherry-picking" is a blog post from 2011. In my estimation this kind of spin happens all the time on Wikipedia.
Goodness, are you not familiar with the phrase "correlation does not imply causation"?
There are ways to establish causal relationships, the gold standard of which is to conduct a double-blind controlled trial.
To claim as you have that a correlational study establishes a causal relationship is deeply misguided, irrespective of whether or not it is peer-reviewed.
Yes I am - you don't seem to know that all a double-blind controlled trial produces is (at best) a very strong correlation. I'm not claiming that a correlational study implies causation. I'm claiming that ALL statistical analyses can only prove correlation, and never causation. You're wrong about double-blind controlled trials proving causation.
You're confusing strong evidence for causality with establishment and absolute proof of causality. This is even discussed in the sources you've cited (second link). For example here is a quote from one of your sources about the necessity understanding the underlying mechanism before causality can be established:
> A causal mechanism is the process that creates the connection between the variation in an independent variable and the variation in the dependent variable that it is hypothesized to cause (Cook & Campbell, 1979:35; Marini & Singer, 1988). Many social scientists (and scientists in other fields) argue that no causal explanation is adequate until a mechanism is identified.
Political movements not garnering support from mainstream or left wing media... When you get to pick which sources you use you get to pick which views you will present...
This is a common complaint against many publications or resources that attempt unbiased coverage - they are are attacked by people on all sides as being biased against their side.
I'm not familiar with MSNBC and have never even heard of Mother Jones, but surely it's not controversial that Fox News is unreliable? They're an absolute punch line everywhere outside the US.
I'm guessing you must not be from the US, as MSNBC/Fox News both are on TV at all times in various public and private spaces. It depends on the content of course (political), but MSNBC is a left leaning version of Fox News - they are the same, just on the opposite sides of the spectrum. The fact that Wikipedia doesn't rank MSNBC the same as Fox News sends up some flags for me, but I could really care less at this point in my life. Both networks have that cancerous "create outrage for views" thing going on that has been nothing but detrimental to American society. Unfortunately it's just about impossible to get away from, as Americans nowadays seem to be addicted to the constant need for drama and outrage in their lives.
I'm not sure about Mother Jones, but the other two I would always take with a grain of salt.
Fox News goes well beyond having a lean, so far that they find themselves in legal hot water. And that's only when the pontificating on nonsense is so egregious that it's legally actionable...
I wish people would use their brains rather than seek out charlatans promising unbiased information.
To elaborate, I think that this obsession creates a few interesting scenarios. If people are flatly told/believe how a given media is biased then they don't have to read critically themselves. It can also be used to shut down discussion, your source is biased- I can ignore it.
Calling stuff biased is becoming a hell of a thought-stopper. That you say elsewhere,
> Yeah, everything is relative, truth doesn't exist, yadda-yadda.
strikes me as downright ironic. The routine and wholesale dismissal of sources because they don't tell the story with someone's preferred angle is amounting to a whole lot of yadda-yadda, I agree!
In my opinion, yes. But I still feel the better route to increasing spermidine is finding out if you are deficiency in arginine, manganese, B6 or one of the several cofactors for the methylation cycle.
Though, will having more Arginine, Manganese and B6 automatically trigger your own body to make spermidine? Isn't there maybe a limit when the body stops producing spermidine?
> Nippon Television has just acquired Studio Ghibli, which will become a subsidiary of their company.
Producer Toshio Suzuki (75y old) was looking for a successor, and proposed Goro Miyazaki, but Hayao Miyazaki (82y old) refused (and so did Goro).
Nippon Television was already a long-standing partner of Ghibli ("Friday Road Show").
What don't you do the same, stay indoor, humans too are highly destructive to fauna, they can get injured, die, breed, pick up parasites, or catch communicable diseases that may be incurable.
All animals should be free, if you can't provide freedom to your animals then you should not have any.
You are making an obtuse argument. You do realise pets are introduced species in many parts of the world, and actually end up being significant pests, right? Predatory pets like cats are especially destructive in most ecosystems, many small native species are vulnerable and end up being endangered, because they have not evolved a defence strategy against them. Places like Australia has a huge problem because of it.
Again, keep your cat indoors. Otherwise, you're part of the problem.
It's not an obtuse argument. People value different things. You listed a bunch of things you value (lifespan of cat, not killing lots of birds, etc) but other people are uncomfortable preventing their cat that wants to go outside from going outside. They're weighing their cat's own preferences over the things you value and reasonable people can disagree over questions like this.
It is an obtuse argument. Because they identify themselves in what I said earlier, got defensive about it, and then resorted to mental gymnastics in an attempt to absolve responsibility for the harm caused by their own pets.
I understand where you're coming from, as they can be highly destructive and are to be blamed for some species on Pacific Islands going extinct! The humans who brought cats to such fragile ecosystems are clearly to blame.
By and large, domestic US outdoor cats are not in fragile ecosystems, but they are the number one killer of birds. They roam outside along with other species (like squirrels and crows) that have had to adapt to the insane environment humans have developed.
I've always seen my pets as persons, with feeling and moods. Trapping them inside is cruel. Cats in nature are adapted to roam and explore.
My cat in the US regretably, has brought home a few birds, but all of the birds were species of least concern. Fortunately, there are a lot of cheap collars owners can use to help alert the bird of the cat's presence before predation occurs.
Your cat doesn't know which species are of least concern, and you certainly aren't seeing every bird or small mammal or reptile your cat kills for fun.
I recently took a course on ornithology and was stunned by how difficult a bird's life is from the migrations, predations, building collisions, and the sheer amount of work they invest in nesting and raising their young. It's easy to take them for granted until you actually understand what they go through just to exist, unlike a pampered cat who gets to kill for sport.
Cat owners who allow their cats outdoors are being cruel to birds and small animals, period. A bell on your cat's collar doesn't make much difference. There's no way to wiggle out of this moral dilemma. If you love nature and want it balanced and protected, then keep your cat indoors. Or, if you can, train your cat to kill only invasive species.
> Your cat doesn't know which species are of least concern, and you certainly aren't seeing every bird or small mammal or reptile your cat kills for fun.
Of course they don't know which is of least concern, but by and large I do see everything they kill because they bring it home and I have to clean it up. It is in their nature to bring it home.
> A bell on your cat's collar doesn't make much difference.
There's barely any species of concern in urban environments anymore, because:
* Industrial run-off
* Habitat destruction
* Roads and highways with vehicles
* Air pollution
* Light pollution
* Poisons
* Electrocution from power lines
* Buildings with glass (actual a #2 killer of birds!)
* Hunting (both legal and illegal)
Domestic cats are merely a cherry on top of the myriad of environmental mistakes humans have made in the name of progress.
They are simply acting on instinct and trying to be happy in a world of human creation.
If you truly care about birds I would urge you to:
* stop driving
* use no lights past dusk
* not use or consume any product that contributes to air pollution
* not use any power grid that uses power lines
* not use any building with glass
* not consume any poultry
You forget that cats aren't always 100% in their kill rates. They also maim many critters who die sooner or later from their injuries.
So while you pet and play with Fluffy that evening, the mother bird she maimed earlier that day can no longer make ~100 trips a day to feed its hatchings. She tries, but can only manage a dozen or so trips. They slowly starve over the next few days despite the mother's desperate attempts.
That bird survived all the other leading causes of bird mortality, but not Fluffy. And Fluffy gets a few more bonus kills when the hatchlings expire.
I'm curious what would you do if people had a new breed of small domesticated dog that is efficient at killing outdoor cats, and those people let that dog roam like a cat?
Given that your cat is out there doing his thing, this new breed of outdoor dog is also out there doing his thing. As you said, they are simply acting on instinct and trying to be happy in a world of human creation.
His owners think he's a person. It would be cruel to lock him up all day.
But one of these dogs swiftly kills your outdoor cat. And your next cat. In fact, they're becoming the leading cause of death among outdoor cats, seconded only by cars.
Would you a) demand that dog breed not be allowed to roam because it harms cats, b) keep your next cat indoors, or c) ?
1. those collars don't work. birds didn't evolve alongside cat w/ flashy collars, so it doesn't always trigger flee instinct
2. if your cat wants to go outdoors, you can leash them like any dog-owner is required to do. the whole "cats need to be in nature" argument is rooted in the assumption that you as the owner aren't involved in that nourishment. if you can't be a responsible cat owner (keeping it from roaming on it's own; keeping it stimulated) then don't get a pet. is the cat really a critical unit of your family if you skirt responsibility and are okay w/ it dying violently outside?
3. the US is very much a fragile ecosystem. source on it not being? we, like many other place, have had a huge and trending decline in biodiversity.
4. cats haven't adapted to the human environment; we've developed technology and laws that have protected cats in our human environment. i'm not sure how they've had to adapt as they can interact with humans safely.
5. you don't see everything your cat kills. you may be able to placate yourself that your cat isn't one of the "rampant killers", but that thought isn't based solely on fact.
I've only been into cat discourse for a few months but in my experience it's almost a guarantee that someone will make the "humans are the real invasive species" argument to defend letting their cat out
You're the one who decide to take an animal as a pet, knowing all the damage it can do to the environment. If you're fine with it then that's ok for you but you can't force your pet to be in prison because you don't want it to kill other species, if that's the case then you should not consider getting one in the first place.
Would you want to live in a cage your whole life? Then why do you want to do it to others?
Never heard of the Golden Rule: "Don't do to others what you wouldn't want them to do to you"?
I understand your point of view, I share it, cats are deadly to many smaller species that's why if you're against that then you shouldn't get a cat at all.
PS: Australia's problem is about the Feral cats and they are making traps in the wild to poison their skin thanks to some box trap and AI.
Oh please, cats are perfectly fine indoors if they are raised that way. There are solutions, like building a catio, indoor platforms and so forth. You can even train them for walking on a leash in a park. If there is a will there is a way. But people are lazy and pretend letting cats out is not a problem.
And if you are living in a shoebox yourself, where you regard your own home as a "prison" or a "cage", then you have no business keeping such a pet anyway.
> PS: Australia's problem is about the Feral cats and they are making traps in the wild to poison their skin thanks to some box trap and AI.
Feral AND domestic. There are laws introduced in Australia that mandates cats to be kept indoors for this reason.
Indeed I guess it depends of the size of the house.
> Feral AND domestic. There are laws introduced in Australia that mandates cats to be kept indoors for this reason.
I didn't know about the domestic one.
> cats are deadly to many smaller species that's why if you're against that then you shouldn't get a cat at all.
Many people who have cats do so by adoption of strays found in their area so not getting a cat is the same as letting a cat roam free in that area without a safe space and consistent food source.
The whole "prisoner" argument seems so dumb to me when we've already decided as a society that it's in the best interests of society to neuter/spay as many cats and dogs as possible to prevent an explosion in the stray population. Do you think we shouldn't do that because you wouldn't neuter/spay yourself?
I genuinely don't understand why you feel the same rules ought to apply to humans and non-sapient animals, especially animals introduced into an environment by humans.
What about the fact that animals introduced to an environment by humans in the name of "freedom" cause disproportionate harm to other animals? Whose freedom wins?
It's the same as cigarets, you know it's toxic to you and others but still you want it regardless.
PS: I love cats and always had one until few years back but I don't want to have one to force him to stay indoor, as long as I don't have a place for it to go out I won't get any.
