leoj

I don’t see anything that indicates danger according to the american cancer society, according to them it is entirely cost benefit although they do admit it has not been thoroughly studied in populations 45+.

Having multiple sex partners, or recently divorced is an indication for getting it though - so if you’re a big 'ol slut (<3) you should consider it at any age, if you can get it paid for.

Is there still a radio 1 “essential mix”? I can still hear the intro and outro from 2008-2013, some real bangers came through that program.

Spotify discover weekly has introduced me to some bangers, and their app has some really great features with a pretty deep library.

I know they suck in some ways, but overall I am pretty happy with their service.

Hopefully not me, I follow medical science, although obviously herd wide health practices will suffer which may result in higher mortality for everyone, even those who follow medical science.

yikes, dude is gonna be draining the four humors.

People saying dogs don’t communicate as much with sound… Are you a 1 or multiple dog household? Because while dogs communicate lightly with me through sound, my two huskies talk to each other a LOT, and if you watch the behavior and actions surrounding each vocal communication you can tell that something is being transferred, even if it is a really simple message.

Would be curious to know more specifically what they are telling each other.

Somebody call Sheldon, we gots questions about flags.

ding ding ding, this is my exact thought, and I remember my ultra religious dad glazing israel while reading me the bible as a kid.

No thanks.

I think the christian religion plays a large role, as many christian americans, who dominate our political cycle, see it as their “holy land”.

man that is a dark bleak way to view the world, I don’t condemn it, but I also don’t condone it.

People are not numbers.

article is about the uk mate.

Also, despite not having healthcare in the USA the costs are STILL eventually socialized, its just we give the companies socialized profits, instead of just paying the exact amount things cost… Like they do in a universal healthcare system.

What do you think hospitals do when too many bills go unpaid? They raise the prices for everyone else.

There is a single payer at the end of the day, its the rest of us.

Sure, but one of those is caused by negligence or willful neglect, the other is at this time considered incidental/accidental.

Seems obvious why one of them should be illegal, doesn’t it?

Damnit John you have dementia because you worked at a dry cleaner doesn’t ring quite the same way as Damnit John you have lung cancer because you smoked cigarettes everyday of your life.

Considering healthcare costs are ultimately socialized in some way or another, I think cigarette smoking bans make sense anywhere, but they make even more sense somewhere with universal healthcare…

definitely some layers to this advice for sure, situation and relationship matters!

The three least heard words in the universe will serve you well, and often catch people off guard - don’t be afraid to use them.

“I was wrong.”

Admit your mistakes when they happen, then when something goes wrong no one will accuse you.

As a self proclaimed leftist who has been to many protests, I have never once heard anyone say the word Antifa except for my Maga boss when he thought Antifa was going to come and rob his house after the BLM protests…

as long as the investment mortgages aren’t sub prime 🙃

Isn’t this what jeff Bezos is doing with fractional real estate investment, except evil?

Not pooping on the idea, I would totally toss money towards a fractional mortgage to help someone else get a home, just noting how the upside down universe version of this idea is already out there.

sauc: https://arrived.com/

I did not intend to ever say you can have personalized advertisements without invading someone’s privacy, I’m not sure what I wrote that you interpreted that way, possibly my discussion about how I feel the current ads are not always relevant?

Either way, I stated that advertisers should utilize the content of the website or the content being viewed as a method to advertise, which does not involve invasions of privacy.

Or maybe it was when I said “you don’t need to invade someones privacy to advertise to them”

That is me saying, you can have advertisements that are meant for a specific group, and believe that someone is part of that group based on them visiting a website, without invading their privacy.

Its how newspapers did advertisements, its why magazines existed - to sell ad space for specific interest groups. People also give away data by signing up for websites, interest groups, or ordering things, all data that can be harvested without entering my computer or invading my privacy.

I’m not sure what I said is conflicting, and I feel like your statement is trying to minimize the point I am making, but thats ok, I believe we will never come to agreement here because I firmly disagree with the disruption of privacy for the sake of advertisement.

You can say my feelings are meaningless, but as this gets more invasive people will seek ways to opt out, which I believe is meaningful, although you can say and feel whatever you want my friend :).

Thanks for the book rec, I’ll look it over!