themeatbridge

joined 2 years ago
[–] themeatbridge@lemmy.world 4 points 3 hours ago

I mean, being in prison, you don't have much else to do but keep fighting in court. Our legal system is a meat grinder, and our prisons are a horror show.

[–] themeatbridge@lemmy.world 21 points 4 hours ago

Inflection point? Is that the point where everything has already gone to shit, and everyone is standing around in the smoldering remains of what used to be something manageable? Because I don't think where we are now is called that.

[–] themeatbridge@lemmy.world 4 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago)

The answer probably has something to do with tradition, typesetting, and ticker tape machines. Like using 1/4 instead of 0.25% saved $x million each day in ink or some shit like that. I don't know, I'm pretty drunk.

[–] themeatbridge@lemmy.world 26 points 7 hours ago (6 children)

Hold up, because this gives me an idea.

Let's embrace the celebration. Let's lean into honoring the man they claim Charlie Kirk was. Make remembering him all about the tolerance for debate and discussion, the respect for minorities and women, the traditional values of freedom of speech. In honor of Kirk, speak truth to power, and challenge the conventional ideas.

Nevermind, my mind isn't limber enough for all thos gymnastics.

[–] themeatbridge@lemmy.world 24 points 7 hours ago

We don't need a smoking gun. Trump has smoking guns in his hands at all times on national television broadcasts. He keeps firing them in every direction, and people are being maimed or killed.

[–] themeatbridge@lemmy.world 6 points 9 hours ago

Or they are crimes of opportunity. Museum security is probably not what we see in movies, and smaller museums might leave the wrong person holding the right key at the right time.

But the fact that there have been similar robberies would support your theory.

[–] themeatbridge@lemmy.world 20 points 9 hours ago (4 children)

The fucked up part is that any historical or scientific value of the artifacts is going to be melted away so the thieves can sell the gold.

[–] themeatbridge@lemmy.world 56 points 1 day ago (1 children)

For the people who got paid, yes of course it was worth it.

[–] themeatbridge@lemmy.world 35 points 2 days ago

Best to think of the canals like an open sewer.

[–] themeatbridge@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

Perhaps. Or maybe, people with healthier, more efficient lungs are able to walk faster without breathing heavier. In that case, breathing less might reduce the inhaled carcinogens, reducing the risk of lung cancer.

Looking at the actual research, the conclusions are carefully worded to avoid this sort of reporting.

Faster walking speed, whether self-reported or measured, is associated with a reduced risk of cancer development. This association appears to be partially mediated by lower inflammation and improved lipid profiles.

[–] themeatbridge@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago

Probably. Or maybe, people who have healthier lungs don't need to breathe as much to efficiently exchange oxygen for CO2. So maybe breathing less protects against lung cancer by inhaling fewer carcinogens.

There are simply too many confounding variables to control for all of them. Research like this is important, and it's not the researchers' fault. Notice how the conclusions are carefully worded to specifically avoid exactly this sort of news article.

[–] themeatbridge@lemmy.world 20 points 2 days ago (4 children)

A research team in the Department of Pharmacology and Pharmacy at the LKS Faculty of Medicine of the University of Hong Kong (HKUMed), has conducted a pioneering study that found an association between walking speed and cancer risk. The researchers found that individuals who walk faster have a markedly lower overall risk of developing cancer, particularly lung cancer. This association was consistent regardless of whether walking speed was self-reported or objectively measured.

As always, correlation =|= causation. Walking speed is almost certainly linked to like 15 other good health indicators. Exercise is good for you, and you should do it. But these results do not support the recommendation that fast walking will reduce your chances of lung cancer. These results say that if you already walk fast that you probably have a lower chance of lung cancer. Maybe it is the healthier lungs that allow you to walk faster? Maybe it's a genetic component that makes you walk faster AND reduces your chances of lung cancer. Maybe they fucked up the sample and all of their slow walkers lived downwind of an asbestos plant.

Again, exercise is good for you. Exercise as much as you can. Cannot stress that enough. The health value of exercise is unquestionable and universal, and a lack of exercise is bad for you in every way. Bad science is bad for everyone, though.

 
view more: next ›