Just an aside, this question reminded me of an interview I watched with a former CIA agent speaking about how when he worked overseas he varied his routine randomly every day. Woke up, left the house at different times, drove different routes to work, etc to avoid being targeted. He had a colleague from a different nation who regularly accused him of being paranoid. Then his colleague got assassinated.

Nutmeg is poisonous in high doses and can lead to hallucinations, seizures, and other complications.

I can see from your comment you want to better understand queer people and feel that supporting them as equals is the right thing to do. Your lack of insight into the historical and ongoing persecution your in-group has had toward this minority is a issue and will limit your ability to support queer people at this time.

Christianity as a whole has spent literally centuries persecuting sexual minorities and reinforcing the belief that people who are not cisgendered and heteronormative are living inherently sinful lives and are morally bankrupt people who should be ostracized from society or worse. People have been imprisoned, castrated, and murdered by state and state-like actors because of Christianity’s beliefs. People have spent their lives hiding who they love because they would literally be beaten by their neighbors, had their careers ruined, or run out of town if it came to light they were homosexual.

Has this gotten better in recent years? Mostly

Does this mean people who are Christian inherently hold this belief or are themselves bad people? No.

But your lack of introspection and/or knowledge of the historical context for which queer people have distrust of Christians as a whole is evidence that you don’t really understand the problem.

Your comment that you feel like you’re being looked down upon by people is also interesting. Many people now look back upon the centuries by which Christians sought to impose their belief system on others often through state-imposed violence, and how some groups continue to do so, as barbaric and directly confrontational to modern concepts of freedom and liberty. But Christianity is still the most populous religion in the world, and conservative Christian ideals are seeing large political victories in many western counties over the last 1-2 decades, often directly at the expense of the rights of women and minorities. This argues that you really aren’t the persecuted minority that is sometimes brought up in modern propaganda such as the laughable concept of the “War on Christmas”.

If you want to support queer people, I think that’s great. If your idea of support is “I don’t care what they do as long as it’s not forced on me” you should recognize the historical irony in this statement as Christianity has spent literal millennia forcing its ideals on others and continues to attempt to do so. I would encourage you to reflect on your beliefs, if you truly accept queer people as legitimate equals, and obtain some historical perspective on this issue.

US Physician here. The efforts I place into keeping a patient with capacity in the hospital vary directly to the concern I have about their pathology. There is a very real subset of people who have capacity, i.e. have the mental faculties about them that I cannot legally or ethically place them under a medical hold for treatment, who clearly do not comprehend the gravity of their situation or the likelihood they will die if they leave. I have unfortunately seen a number of patients who require significant amounts of supplemental oxygen, IV medications to support their blood pressure, life-threatening infections requiring IV antibiotics, etc, who for whatever reason decide they don’t want to be in the hospital anymore. Discontinuation of this life support puts their life at near-immediate risk, but the folks that are usually trying to leave in these situations are angry, distrusting of the medical system, and very goal-oriented on what they want to leave the hospital for (food because they’re NPO, illicit substance use, smoking, care for their dog, etc) to the point that they’re capable of saying “yeah yeah I can die whatever fucker, unhook me and let me leave.” These patients deserve for me to sit down with them and try and have a conversation about what we can do to keep them in the hospital because I’m worried they physically won’t make it through the hospital doors before they lose consciousness.

There are also people who have capacity, want to leave for whatever reason, and aren’t literally gonna die in 5 minutes. They get papers and a pat on the back as they walk out the door.

All of this hinges on a patient’s decision making capacity, and the reason every single time you want to leave the hospital against medical advice (AMA) you have to talk to one of the treating doctors is they have to determine if you have capacity at the time you’re making that decision. To be allowed to leave the hospital AMA you have to be able to demonstrate that you can understand why you’re in the hospital, the risks of leaving the hospital AMA, and hold consistent and logical (not necessarily rational) positions on decisions/priorities. If you can’t do any one of those things, you by definition don’t have medical decision making capacity, and I am not only legally allowed to, but I’m ethically obligated to keep you in the hospital to be treated until either a surrogate decision maker with capacity can be identified OR you have return of your capacity after your illness improves and we have this conversation again.

This is incorrect. You just can’t switch manufacturers easily if you’re stable on one. But that’s not a brand vs generic thing, that’s an any manufacturer to any-other manufacturer thing. Same with warfarin, narrow-therapeutic index antiepileptics, etc.

No idea unfortunately, but definitely not to release pressure. You don’t get air in your brain, it’s all fluid. Outside of the hospital, all the drains drain to somewhere internal, usually the abdominal cavity

Am doctor. Outside of very rare and specific causes of headache, no this wouldn’t fix anything, just put you at risk for infections.

Am a doctor, this wasn’t actually a migraine and is not how migraines happen. Shunts are placed for elevated intracranial pressure, which can occur for a number of reasons, and do cause headaches. But it’s a very uncommon cause of headaches and a shunt will not fix your actual migraines or tension headaches.

Cellular insulin resistance is the definition of Type II diabetes

Body-bag ice cooling has actually been pretty common practice across emergency medicine for some time. Legit body bags (clean ones obviously) are purpose built to be watertight and hold an adult human, and they’re easily accessible to hospitals. It’s a very effective and affordable method for controlling hyperthermia

Not OP but loss of the Pi results in loss of network connectivity. A headache if you’re home and never doing anything time-critical on the network. A disaster if you or anyone else is dependent on the network for anything time-sensitive (virtual doctors appointment, work call, etc), or you’re away from home and unable to directly VPN to your router to reconfigure DNS settings.

Statistically? Cancer or heart disease.

It’s not that we don’t use mode, there are definitely times mode is used. It’s just that mean (and median as well) contain a lot more useful information about distributions that we often care about. For a normal distribution mean, median, and mode should all be identical. So why do we use mean? Because mathematically, the mean is what underpins the formula for the normal distribution, not median or mode, and when you’re talking about doing math with normal distributions mean is the thing to talk about (along with standard deviation).

We use median a lot too, you probably just don’t hear it called median very often. The median is useful in non-normal distributions, and it defines the 50th percentile, so along with the 25%-ile and 75%-ile you’ve got your quartile distributions. We use these all the time to talk about grades in schools, or when we talk about home prices distributions in a given area, or salaries within a given field.

We use mode too, again just by a different name most of the time. Any time you’ve asked “what’s the most common blank” you’re basically asking for a mode. When we talk about “average” income in a country, we’re usually actually talking about median or mode. Favorite animal? Answered as a mode.

You have to use the right statistical tool for your question: unfortunately English doesn’t do a good job of conveying this without math jargon.

All of my encounters with individuals who feel liberal arts are useless and STEM is the way seem to, at their core, feel that way because of earning potential, and I’ve never heard one of them bash Econ/finance/investment as a career path. But 🤷‍♂️

Then no, I don’t agree with this specific implementation of the system, at least the second half. I do think more productive/effective workers should be compensated more. But being a good engineer does not make you a good manager, and the issues associated with promoting an excelling worker into management (a job requiring a substantially different skill set) are so common there’s a name for their inevitable failure, The Peter Principle

I didn’t say it did, but I am a citizen of the USA and the vast majority of my cultural experience and knowledge, and therefore what I can intelligently comment on, are centered on the US.

Well you need to clarify further then. Are you saying we should make the best scientist the president, or the person with the most aptitude for politics and rule to be president? I don’t see how this is functionally different than what I said.

If I was guessing, in general, I think people who advocate for a pure meritocracy in the USA feel the world should be evaluated in more black and white, objective terms. The financial impact and analytic nature of STEM and finance make it much easier to stratify practitioners “objectively” in comparison to finding, for instance, the “best” photographer. I think there is also a subset of US culture that thinks that STEM is the only “real” academic group of fields worth pursuing, and knowledge in liberal arts is pointless -> not contributing to society -> not a meaningful part of the meritocracy. But I’m no expert.

As a general rule, yes. People who are able to better perform a task should be preferentially allocated towards those tasks. That being said, I think this should be a guiding rule, not a law upon which a society is built.

For one, there should be some accounting for personal preference. No one should be forced to do something by society just because they’re adept at something. I think there is also space within the acceptable performance level of a society for initiatives to relax a meritocracy to some degree to help account for/make up for socioeconomic influences and historical/ongoing systemic discrimination. Meritocracy’s also have to make sure they avoid the application of standardized evaluations at a young age completely determining an individual’s future career prospects. Lastly, and I think this is one of common meritocracy retorhic’s biggest flaws, a person’s intrinsic value and overall value to society is not determined by their contributions to STEM fields and finance, which is where I think a lot of people who advocate for a more meritocracy-based society stand.

You’re generalizing a specific phenomenon, and incorrect. Acid-base reactions only very rarely produce gases. The reactions produce heat and water, only in the case of bicarbonate being a base is a gas produced. This is because carbonic acid forms, which spontaneously decays into carbon dioxide. This is not a universal acid-base phenomenon. Soaps should not cause fizzing with vinegar.