Hey, I actually missed that part. (I assumed it was deaths relating to the pregnancy itself, not including additional procedures like abortions)
Still, 17.4 - 0.45 = 16.95, which is still substantially higher than the case fatality rate of abortion-related fatalities alone.
As much as it fills me with joy to see fascists like JD Vance get mauled by their own past words, I hate how much this will be propped up as an argument against him today.
I think we can all agree that people change their minds, whether it be from propaganda, malicious intent, or genuine education, so the only thing he has to do to escape this line of attack is just say "my opinions changed."
I'm sure that to a degree, he still believes what he originally wrote, but has simply repressed it in favor of being able to do less thinking about his political positions, and garner more public attention and power.
This is kind of just a bad argument.
Nobody is arguing that an abortion can save a woman from all consequences.
Nobody is arguing that death is impossible as a result of abortion.
But when somebody dies because something prevented them from getting a procedure that would have been highly likely to save them, that doesn't come into conflict with the possibility of death from the procedure. It's a matter of personal choice.
Especially considering the maternal mortality rate (# of deaths per 100,000 live births) is 17.4, while the case fatality rate for abortions (# of deaths per 100,000 legal induced abortions) is just 0.45
Now imagine how much higher that rate gets when abortions are performed illegally because legislation like this stops safe abortions from being possible, without curbing demand.
Yes, people die from abortions. Yes, people die from pregnancy. Yes, this woman could have died from the abortion procedure even if she was able to get it.
But her chance of death was significantly lower if she had been capable of getting an abortion, which she was not.
The train also only runs between Erkner Station, and Tesla Sud, which is literally just the station right at the Tesla manufacturing facility in the area.
"It's also free to not just Tesla employees, but regular passengers as well."
That's great and all, but are everyday people taking trains to go see the outside of a Tesla factory, then leaving again?
The Internet Archive is a library.
Not only are they a member of the Boston Library Consortium, but their entire operation is based around preserving not just webpages, but books, and other forms of media.
They even offer loans of various materials to and from other libraries, and digitize & archive works from the Library of Congress, the Smithsonian, the New York Public Library, and more.
To say the Internet Archive isn't an "actual library," and has "stepped out of their fucking lane" is ridiculous.
This ruling doesn't just affect the Internet Archive, it affects every single other library out there that wants to lend ebooks, and digitize their existing physical copies of books for digital lending.
If OpenAI wants a pass, then just like how piracy services make content freely open and available, they should make their models open.
Give me the weights, publish your datasets, slap on a permissive license.
If you're not willing to contribute back to society with what you used from it, then you shouldn't exist within society until you do so.
(in response to him selling the family home)
"My family took it well," the 53-year-old told the New York Post. "My wife's super supportive. My kids are probably better for it, if we're keeping it real."
Just another demonstration of how the Hedonic Treadmill effect means becoming a billionaire won't meaningfully improve your life compared to the negative impact you inflict upon all of society by taking millions of dollars of worker's and consumer's value from them!
For those who don't care to read the full article:
This basically just confines any cookies generated on a page, to just that page.
So, instead of a cookie from, say, Facebook, being stored on site A, then requested for tracking purposes on site B, each individual site would be sent its own separate Facebook cookie, that only gets used on that site, preventing it from tracking you anywhere outside of the specific site you got it from in the first place.
Good fucking riddance.
The sooner they realize the enshittification isn't working, and is only increasing the amount of people participating in the largest global consumer boycott ever, the sooner they'll actually try to improve the platform, or die resisting.
YouTube has continuously made the experience worse, adding more and more ads to users not using ad blockers, to compensate for those using them. Guess what, genius? People block ads because they suck. Adding more won't stop people from using ad blockers!
And they have the audacity to try selling YouTube Premium for a whopping $14/mo (nowhere near the actual revenue generated from a user watching ads,) then don't even provide any real benefit past ad blocking, after they deliberately killed YouTube Originals because it didn't instantaneously bring in immense profits.
And the content creators I personally know have shown me the amount of money they get from Premium users, and it's sometimes less than the value of an ad-supported user, even though the Premium user generates more revenue than an ad-supported one.
I would pay for YouTube Premium if it was a reasonable rate, and actually came with exclusive content, similar to Nebula, but it doesn't.
Instead, YouTube has continued to make the interface more and more bloated, slow, and inefficient, and increased the incentives for low-quality, mass-produced content, all while not paying creators enough to support themselves on YouTube's own platform.
YouTube can't see itself as being the cause of its own issues, because it's blinded by bad ad-driven fiscal policy that has only been a proven failure.
The "platform economy" is just another term for digital landlords.
Fuck 'em.
Adblockers are the largest consumer boycott in history.
Google isn't just disabling an extension, they're attacking a boycott comprised of 200,000,000+ people, all around the globe, standing up to forced manipulation of our beliefs and habits by profit-hungry corporations.
Undocumented immigrants can't file income tax, because they are undocumented. However, they also can't utilize the majority of our costly social services, because they, obviously, don't have documentation. They can't sign up for welfare programs, utilize police resources for fear of being deported, etc.
Overall though, they are also human. They produce similar economic demand to Americans. They pay sales tax. Their landlord pays tax on their rent. They are also often paid less than Americans because they have no ability to enforce the law through legal means (again, for fear of being deported), but still have to buy things like food, which is taxed.
Thus, they tend to, at a bare minimum, take roughly about what they put in, leaving a mostly neutral effect on the economy.
Immigration is generally regarded to boost innovation overall, lead to higher education rates within the workforce, and creates higher overall economic productivity., which is an effect on the economy that isn't just taxes in, taxes out.
Of course, the best option we have is to grant them amnesty, because that then means they can file & pay income taxes, can more easily be statistically measured and analyzed as a group, and can engage in class solidarity through union organization, which raises working conditions and wages for all workers.