'speedballs' and exertion from resisting arrest, he swallowed his entire stash of drugs to avoid going to jail
to make matters worse he had severe hypertension and was hospitalized in 2019 during similar arrest with BP of 210 on 130, his heart just couldn't handle it this time
> 'speedballs' and exertion from resisting arrest (...)
Does that "exertion" include a grown man kneeling on your neck while you repeatedly and desperately tell him that the knee on his neck is stopping him from breeding?
Because, even taking that claim at face value, it's pretty clear that removing the risk factor of having a grown police officer kneeling on your back and neck in a way that's stopping you from breeding would be something that did wonders to your ability to continue breeding and not die.
Enough with this bullshit whitewashing of a brutal police murder.
> the parent comment asked "why couldn't he breathe in the back of the car"
Did George Floyd died in the back of the car? Or did he died after the police officer spent over 8 minutes kneeling on his neck until and after he lost conciousness?
Enough with this bullshit. It's absurd how these mental gymnasts try to inflate the relevance of trace amounts of a recreational drug as a smoking gun, which mind you was already thoroughly ruled out, but having a grown man kneeling on your neck for over 8 minutes after until the very moment the person dies is somehow worth no consideration?
neck restraint is standard use of force. noone can be suffocated via back of the neck pressure unless there is significant tissue damage and broken bones or something indicating severely restricted airflow, and no damage whatsoever was found neither in his skin, nor deep tissue, nor bones of his neck.
based on expert testimony and autopsy report he died from cardiac arrhythmia caused by drug overdose and exertion from resisting arrest which his sick heart just couldn't handle.
He might have survived only if he didn't swallow his entire stash of fentanyl & meth to avoid jail and vigorously resist arrest, but unfortunately he did.
This politicized case will be thrown out on appeal, as jury was obviously intimidated by mobs on the streets and politicians like Rep. Waters calling for violence in case of non-guilty verdict. One of the alternate jurors actually admitted it in recent interview, that they were scared to go against the mob "verdict".
Being a regular listener to This Week in Virology where they've had a number of guests on who discussed this. The thing is the Wuhan Institute of Virology was a normal lab collaborating with researchers around the world. I'm sure it's possible that the local books could be cooked by the government but that doesn't change the fact that the collaborators also have the books. If they'd known that this particular virus would escape then obviously they wouldn't have shared info about it. But how would they know that unless they planned to release it? And planning to release it doesn't make sense for all the normal reasons.
The way HN comes down so hard against the lab leak hypothesis is spooky. Opinion about this is thrown around so heavily. Credentials: NPR listener AKA elite understander of things? The tide of understanding the origin of this virus is turning as Chinese propaganda wears thin. Many of you may recieve your comeuppance and I hope you're embarassed by your sheepishness.
Most posts which are critical of China get a lot of downvotes. The reason for that is speculation as HN does not publish statistics or transparency, but the issue of lab leak versus occurring outside of the lab has become so political that it has divided rational people who might otherwise question more honestly.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, is the problem.
Animal to human transmission is a thing that exists and is known. Much less extraordinary, much more mundane, but much more plausible.
Until there is extraordinary proof of your claim, and not just 'I feel it' type of arguments, I will steadfastly believe it started from a bat, as originally claimed.
If you have proof of your claim, and I have missed it, please provide it. I would appreciate it.
You speak on the virus as if you have expertise, or have studied the subject. Yet I suspect you, and so many posters here, are mere podcast listeners. The arrogance is almost a virus in spirit.
No, I don't speak as if I have expertise. I speak as someone who has been alive to experience various diseases that started from animals.
I'm not being arrogant, and I don't understand your attitude. You are making an absolutely extraordinary claim. This absolutely requires extraordinary proof.
Again, I would be really excited to read about any proof you have of your claims. Please link to something, I would appreciate it.
There has never been such a thing as a politically neutral HN. It's just that there wasn't until recently a userbase to counteract the liberal tech groupthink.
That's more recent, to be honest. When I started reading HN, it was very very libertarian (but mostly non-political).
As it's grown bigger, it's started to reflect the demographics of software/data/professional people, with a bias towards the West Coast of the US.
That's presumably what you mean by the liberal tech groupthink (note that disliking Trump does not make one a liberal, which is a mistake a lot of conservatives have made over the past four years).
How long ago was the dominant libertarian scene? I've been reading for about 7 years and it's definitely been heavy liberal with the occasional libertarian belief even back then. Since 2016 it's been full throated liberalism though.
2011 is when I started lurking here. i originally had disgruntledphd, but lost my password and there was no way to recover it (apparently you could contact paul graham, but I didn't know that) so I became disgruntledphd2.
I don't understand the usage of awful here. Are you using it to suggest the journalism is good and deserving of recognition (confusing) or that the Pulitzer is an award for bad journalism?
I believe that illiilliiililil is expressing a somewhat complex set of opinions:
1) They genuinely don’t like the 1619 project.
2) They understand that the Pulitzer is supposed to be an award for good journalism.
3) They believe that journalism about some subjects is more likely to win a Pulitzer without being the best by illiilliiililil‘s standards. You could compare it to the concept of an “Oscar bait” movie: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oscar_bait
I’m not sure I agree with this criticism - I think exploring tough subjects can lead to great work that is especially deserving of praise.
On the American Revolution, pivotal to any account of our history, the project asserts that the founders declared the colonies’ independence of Britain “in order to ensure slavery would continue.” This is not true
The 1619 should have been in time magazine or national geographic, not the new york times. Because its not news, its pseudo-anthropology designed to create a legitimate citation source for teachers and academia in general.
Now high school students can write nonsense in an essay and cite the New York Times as a source, and get A+ from their teachers. This is the real purpose of it
The pomo people telling the anti-pomo they just haven't the understanding is reminiscent of religious apologists/theologians telling atheist debaters they just haven't ground to stand on because they haven't adequately digested a sufficient body of obscure tomes to dismiss X religion. Or "You just haven't read the Koran in classical Arabic! Understanding Islam is beyond you."
No man, the texts are available, go read them. It takes time, effort and respect towards the perspectives of others to actually understand how complex things work, such as theories about human mind and social order.
Would you encourage someone with no experience in chemistry to start mixing chemicals without understanding potentially dangerous effects? Would you encourage someone who is not an engineer to construct a bridge without adequate preparation and planning? Experts can be authoritative because their experience grants them the ability to know better than non-experts in their respective fields.
John Searle makes sense when wiriting on the mind. Jacques Derrida, who I have read, does not. The post-modernists are obscurantist charlatans who en masse form an institution that demands attention rather than the quick dismissal like one would give a rambling bum on the street. Similar to religious apologists they have created an enormous enterprise of bullshit. You are confusing its nebulousness for profundity.
> The post-modernists are obscurantist charlatans who en masse form an institution that demands attention rather than the quick dismissal like one would give a rambling bum on the street.
Yes, like any legitimate discipline of proper research.
> You are confusing its nebulousness for profundity.
Where you see a nebulous blob, experts see an ordered set of ideas. Similar to when an engineer sees a bridge as a series of forces and structures designed to mitigate them, or as when a chemist understands complex chemical formulas while a layperson may see a somewhat disordered series of letters and numbers.
Something isn't wrong just because you don't understand it.
