i am not a skeptic, but with covid19 vax i first hand witnessed completely irregular menstrual cycles, and nerve issues/trigeminal neuralgia that doctors have been unable to "explain" only occuring after my first jab and continue for years.
i took 2 jabs at that start of covid vaxinations, fcked my life up to be honest.
only now doctors they are saying may be related after years of inconclusive reports..
we jumped the gun on covid19 vax, i am fine with anything being out many many years.
we wouldnt dare give it to our children.
BUT we are upto date and will continue to be upto date on immunizations as required by local health and schools (covid is not one of them).
I'd recommend getting your bloods done, and then (if you are experiencing perimenopause) try taking enough œstradiol to get your levels back up: that might reduce the pressure on your trigeminal nerve, if the two things are related. (This of course increases your cancer risk, but for most women it's worth it.)
I'm sorry; I assumed by "doctors" you meant "two GPs", not "over half a dozen specialists".
Out of interest, what have the doctors ruled out? I know your personal opinion is "the vaccine did it", but that was hardly the only thing going on in your life at the time, and n=1 doesn't give a lot of opportunities for a comparison.
I'd be interested in reading the case study, too, once pre-prints are available.
Given every human body is interacting with the world in myriad complex ways, how could you possibly know that your symptoms are caused by the vaccine? Out of the 1000 other factors which affect human health? Isn’t it just a cognitive bias because there is political drama about the vaccine to connect it to our personal experience?
This challenge is why we use randomized controlled trials to investigate the effects of treatment… they are the best tool we know of that can actually measure cause and effect.
> how could you possibly know that your symptoms are caused by the vaccine?
They can't, and often neither can the doctors. That is one of the major practical reasons why vaccinations should be voluntary - it is quite hard to assess the evidence of what exactly medicine does. Some things take a while for the evidence to really form a meaningful pattern.
It was like them declaring the vaccine safe and effective after a few months of trials - that isn't a crazy standard but if the vaccine literally caused people to drop dead after 12 months for some weird reason they just couldn't have detected it because not enough time had passed.
>They can't, and often neither can the doctors. That is one of the major practical reasons why vaccinations should be voluntary
OK, so vaccines that improve the situation because of creating herd immunity should not be mandatory because a small number of the people taking the vaccine may think that medical problems they develop some time after vaccination was caused by the vaccination without any particular proof that the vaccination was the cause, thus allowing enough people to opt out of taking the vaccines destroying the benefits of herd immunity.
>but if the vaccine literally caused people to drop dead after 12 months for some weird reason they just couldn't have detected it because not enough time had passed.
is there a specific time period cut off for this scenario in your head? What if a vaccine caused people to drop dead after 50 years for some reason, we should wait 50 years then.
I'm certainly open to that idea, although I'll note specifically with the COVID vaccines they don't lead to herd immunity. They don't appear to do much to stop transmission in practice, I'm aware of 1 person who didn't get COVID after being vaccinated and the vast majority of COVID transmissions in Australia are from vaccinated people.
The COVID vaccines were strictly personal protection.
> is there a specific time period cut off for this scenario in your head?
No; although personally rather than specific timelines I'd prefer that the people compelling me to get vaccinated had evidence they thought was compelling - they appeared to think threats were necessary which does make me doubt the quality of the evidence. That is the thing about voluntary administration of medical procedures - everyone gets to decide their own standard of evidence. Maybe some people just won't get vaccinated.
Ugh I’m sorry about that. A close female friend of mine has similar issues. I also was not anti-vax but now I look a lot more critically at stuff like this.
Anyway, just wanted to say—you’re not crazy, you really experienced what you experienced, and I’m glad people are becoming more open minded about this stuff.
> i took 2 jabs at that start of covid vaxinations, fcked my life up to be honest.
Literally WHAT PROOOOF do you have of this? Do you not understand how unbelievably fucking complicated health is? Hm?
I got cancer in my 20s, do you know what caused it? No fucking idea. There's literally thousands of things that could have caused it, take your pick. I don't know, my doctor doesn't know, nobody fucking knows.
So what the fuck do you mean the COVID vaccine ruined your life? Did you eat McDonald's between now and then? So then how do you know it isn't the McDonald's?
Or, I'll do you one better: how do you know it wasn't COVID itself?
Anyone talking about the the covid vaccine immediately betrays their ignorance. There were a great many different vaccines distributed in very large quantities around the world.
maybe i dont full understand "many-core", but the definition the article implies aligns with what i think of latest qualcomm snapdragon mobile processor for example with cores at different frequencies/other differences.
also i dont understand why ps3 is considered a failure, when did it fail?
in NA xbox360 was more popular (i would say because xbox live) but ps3 was not far behind (i owned a ps3 at launch and didnt get a xbox360 till years later).
from a lifetime sales, shows more ps3s shipped globally than xbox.
The incredibly high price of the PS3 at launch cost it a lot of sales, and it took forever to come down. Both of those are direct results of the hardware cost of the Cell and BluRay drive.
Early on the Xbox also did a better job with game ports. People had very little experience using multicore processors and the cell was even worse. So often the PlayStation three would have a lower resolution or worse frame rate or other problems like that.
Xbox Live is also an excellent point. That really helped Microsoft a lot.
All of that meant Microsoft got an early lead and the PlayStation three didn’t do anywhere near as well as someone might suspect from a follow up to the PlayStation 2.
As time went on, the benefits of the Blu-ray drive started to factor in some. Every PlayStation had a hard drive, which wasn’t true of the 360. The red ring of death made a lot of customers mad and scared others off from the Xbox. And as Sony released better libraries and third parties just got a better handle on things they started to be able to do a better job on their PS3 versions to where it started to match or exceed the Xbox depending on the game.
By the end I think the PlayStation won in North American sales but it was way way closer than it should have been coming off the knockout success of the PS2.
I would argue that the failure extended to the user-perceptible performance deficit vs the XB360 despite arguably more capable hardware. Released games didn't perform better on the PS3 even if they technically could.
That's part of the failure in developer mindshare: leveraging SMT for games in 2005 was difficult enough, heterogeneous multi-ISA hardware, a ring bus, and the peculiarities of the SPEs made the PS3 not really a consideration. Things might have been different if sony had provided ready-made more or less plug and play SPE applications you could use with just a little tuning for your circumstance (e.g. a physics engine or something) but as far as I know that wasn't the case. I've never heard Sony being praised for its SDKs, while the 360 had straight up directx (with more hardware access).
Big little cores like on mobile or some Intel processors are really not the same thing. The little cores have the same instruction set and address the same memory as the big cores and are pretty transparent to devs apart from some different performance characteristics.
The SPEs were a different instruction set with a different compiler tool chain running separate binaries. You didn't have access to an OS or much of a standard library, you only had 256K of memory shared between code and data. You had to set up DMA transfers to access data from main memory. There was no concept of memory protection so you could easily stomp over code with a write to a bad pointer (addressing wrapped so any pointer value including 0 was valid to write to). Most systems would have to be more or less completely rewritten to take advantage of them.
You can get banned from coming to the US if they catch you lying about the reason you're crossing the border. It's a long arduous process and lawyer fees to get the ban overturned. Happened to a Canadian I knew a decade ago when they tried to enter on a tourist visa for business purposes.
I'm sure it's similar in other countries but US has always been very strict given the huge amount of people trying to work there and the very finite supply of work visas.
From my experience you'll also get extra scruntiny if you're traveling solo like this girl. I was secondary screened twice coming for business where they double checked my paperwork and TSA lady in the back asked a bunch of silly questions (like "what is PayPal").
i think she was "working" but potentially unpaid/compensated in lodging staying a t https://www.workaway.info/ (which was reported by the BBC where she was staying)
> Important information about visiting: United States
> If you are NOT a US CITIZEN and are planning to visit to work, volunteer or study, YOU WILL NEED THE CORRECT VISA. To find out more information you need to contact the embassy in your home country BEFORE traveling.
But a quick look around near me looks like work for immigration purposes, so someone on a tourist visa to the US should not be participating.
i was following this on another site before it showed up here:
1)UK citizens dont need a visa perse coming into canada as a tourist
1b) electronic travel authorization form is not required for UK citizens coming to canada over land border.
2)she was staying at Workaway, which depending on how you interpret/misinterpret is "working" (which it possibly is, a little shady on what they are.)
so canada may have thought she was going to work... which a tourist visa doesnt cover
so my guess is canadian authorities felt she was coming here to work, which she didnt have the proper paperwork so got denied.
USA authorities upon re-entry attempt, probably felt she is scamming the ESTA 90 days being on a "4 month" trip, staying at workaway locations...
and playing devils advocate, there is no proof that this is NOT what she was trying to do... going to a short trip in canada before going back thinking it resets ESTA (they have to be gone from usa for a reasonable time)
so much unknowns.
i think they were right to detain her/deny her entry... but the length of detainment is at issue.
very first thing i think of when viewing their site is this is some lodging for volunteer/unpaid labour.
https://www.workaway.info/
> very first thing i think of when viewing their site is this is some lodging for volunteer/unpaid labour. https://www.workaway.info/
I'm certainly not an immigration lawyer but my understanding is that _no_ work, none, even in exchange for room and board, is allowed on a tourist visa in the US.
Workaway looks like it isn't compatible with a tourist visa in the US and their website doesn't really call that out. Seems like something that nine times out of ten if you're just quiet about it it'll never come up and you'd be fine.
But unfortunately Canada refused entry and then questions were asked. Rough.
Back in 1997 I participated. I had to get a J-1 visa, worked in a summer camp for about two months and got $400 pocket money. I entered the country using the program description, no deception.
Later I actually worked in the US - on a simple business trip visa - B1. For 12 months, interrupted by trips back home. Legally! Reentry got harder and harder with each return trip, and in the end I was taken to the back. But after explaining everything I git the stamp, no problem.
The secret: A big German company wanted to make the software of a big Silicon Valley company work on their platform. The obstacle: That company would not let their source code leave their premises. So this German job normally done in Germany had to be done on premise at the SV company. I still was a full German employee, only a temporary change of office because of that policy. It was acceptable for immigration. I don't think I would try that kind of thing again these days though.
“Generally you will be expected to help around 5 hours per day in exchange for food and accommodation. Some hosts may give a paid allowance to ensure they are offering at least the minimum wage in their country.”
I traveled quite a bit at one point and it was beaten into my head repeatedly that you never mention work unless you have a work visa
It was acceptable to say you were there for a day for a “meeting” but that was still a touchy subject they could absolutely detain you for. “They” in this case was not the U.S. border patrol. All countries want to keep out workers who don’t have the right visa
Needless to say, telling border patrol of any country that you are a residing at someone’s house to work under the table in exchange for housing should get you in trouble.
The U.S. just seems more amenable to making your life hell over it right now
Based just on the details in the report, it seems refusing entry is justified. Or at least not very strange.
What I don't understand is, why not just send her back home vs detaining her? Maybe someone that's more knowledgeable here can chime in. Is it standard practice to detain someone, especially for an extended period, vs just putting them on the first plane back home?
When you are at a land border, but neither country on either side of the border will grant you entry, there is no easy 'way out'.
She could not fly to the UK directly from that border location.
When arrested, she has to go through the proper deportation process - and that might well be very expensive, and she might not have the money to pay. Deportations can easily cost 10x a regular flight cost due to the extra security needed.
> When arrested, she has to go through the proper deportation process
Why? Surely if both the US and the deportee agree that deportation is A-OK then you don't need judges and whatnot involved? Surely having a cop drive her to the airport and make sure she gets on a flight is wildly less work involved for everyone than whatever the fuck is going on now?
Citizens from developed countries think that the immigration rules applied to folks from developing and poorer countries may not be seriously interpreted for them. This is just a good example where crackdown has occurred according to the letter of the law.
I suspect you may just not value artists or art because your comment is quite dismissive. There are artists putting significantly less effort into their creations than this who sell them for significantly more. This particular exhibit isn't even for sale.
Well I'm 40 and lived all over the country and I've never heard it a single time. You sure you don't live in an alternate timeline? Also just to make sure I'm not crazy I looked at iHop's online menu and it's... just pancakes. Never heard anyone call a pancake anything other than a pancake.
Ah, yeah you're thinking of regular pancakes. In this thread, we're talking about crepes made in one of the Scandinavian styles. I haven't heard of IHOP selling those unless it's a special menu item.
Edit: I googled IHOP Swedish pancakes and they apparently had them for awhile and discontinued them a couple years ago.
There was broad bi-partisan support for the first Gulf War (response to Iraq invading Kuwait) and the war in Afghanistan (response to 9/11).
The broader dissent started to come after the invasion of Iraq (based on the notion of Iraqi WMDs) and the lack of progress in Afghanistan or finding Bin Laden.
Foreign policy under different Presidents is often contradictory and as in any political context, the President usually has some base of support from their own party no matter how far off script they go, simply out of unity or fear of the alternative party benefiting from a lack of unity.
So while a coherent policy of “The US should intervene in all conflicts or no conflicts” would be intellectually consistent, the circumstances surrounding the conflict and the political environment lead to inconsistencies.
Good old substationalpha ssa/ass timing memories.