Not sure how this topic belongs here, but this shouldn't matter much for the average homeowner anyway. If someone is breaking in through your front door, they're probably using a bump key. But it's much more likely they get in through a sliding door or a basement/first floor window. The lesson is to have layers of security beyond relying on a single lock.
Also, how to align the plunger is covered in the instructions of even the cheapest doorknobs at Home Depot. If you've ever replaced a doorknob (you should have when you moved into your home), you've already checked for this. Your front door also probably has a deadbolt anyway.
AFAIK the advisory panel can be overruled
Not even overruled. Advisory committee votes are not binding on any component of a drug application.
FDA can and has approved drugs that were unanimously voted against. These meetings used to have some value, but today FDA mostly convenes them as a way of building consensus and an appearance of having done their due diligence. What the committee says or how they vote won't change the outcome of a drug approval, which FDA frequently decides on prior to the meeting.
The meeting will be streamed to the public, please watch if you are able. Information and meeting materials can be found here: https://www.fda.gov/advisory-committees/advisory-committee-calendar/vaccines-and-related-biological-products-advisory-committee-september-17-2021-meeting-announcement
I tried to share information on the meeting when it was first announced, since the public is allowed to both submit comments (which will be provided to the committee) and to make a presentation/speech at the meeting (which will be live streamed to everyone). Unsurprisingly, it was deleted from everywhere but NoNewNormal.win (surviving post here). Even /r/LockdownSkepticism deleted my post.
This is a misleading article. Try visiting the NARA site yourself, and you'll see that the "harmful language" banner appears on every page. It has nothing to do with any particular document, but rather displays as a persistent news alert.
It even appears on the general records group itself: https://catalog.archives.gov/id/340
Except that I am not
So were you lying in the other thread: https://kotakuinaction2.win/p/12kFdu7XZB/x/c/4JEVhULKqXt?
Edit: Looks like the entire OP here has been removed.
You should disclose that you're promoting your own book here.
They're running cover for the economic damage that was already done by the COVID unemployment policies, not upcoming damage:
The slowdown in hiring comes just as emergency unemployment benefits that Congress authorized earlier in the pandemic are about to expire. In mid-August, more than 12 million people were receiving some form of jobless aid. Most will receive their final payments next week.
"Companies want to hire more people," said Tim Fiore, who oversees a monthly survey of factory managers for the Institute for Supply Management. "There's no doubt that demand is calling for more people and they can't get them."
Ask anyone in a recruitment role; most companies want more people, but can't find anyone to hire. It's not surprising hiring has slowed right before unemployment benefits expire, because those who are still "collecting" this late in the game won't feel any motivation to find a job until the money stops. I'm sure plenty have been disincentivized from ever getting a job too, and won't reenter the workforce anytime soon.
The shortages and supply-chain disruptions blamed for long product lead times should be evidence enough that demand far outstrips supply (good news for the economy). But who wants to work when the government will give you money for free?
As I remember it, OSHA's initial requirement to report vaccine injuries as workplace injuries was immediately held up as a key resistance component against vaccine mandates. The large amount of publicity led to their quickly recanting, and then the point was just as quickly tossed aside by those who are against mandates. Their initial position was unexpected, so OSHA was assumed lost and unrecoverable once that position was walked back. Less under the radar, and more moving on from a lost cause.
US life expectancy has declined consistently since 2014. This past year isn't an aberration, it's a continuation of the trend.
This sets up the ability to identify and incapacitate anyone
It's always important to safeguard your identity and personal information on any device you use. However, claiming TPM serves to "identify and incapacitate" your device is wildly inaccurate. As I explained in my other comment, TPM exists for cryptography. It has nothing to do with what you're claiming.
That's not true at all. You're sensationalizing a technology already used by Windows 10.
First, TPM is primarily an issue for compatibility, since some fairly recent generations don't support it natively. However, the last few gens of both Intel and AMD CPUs have firmware-based TPM. For computers with those processors, all you need to do is enable TPM in BIOS, if not already enabled. Older desktops have the option of adding a module to your motherboard.
Second, TPM isn't being required in Windows 11 for DRM. It's for encryption. Windows 10 also has the capability to use TPM for encryption. In short, TPM allows you to create cryptographic keys that can only be decrypted by the TPM. You can take this a step further and prevent keys from being migrated outside the TPM, meaning they're never exposed. Microsoft aims to sell their encryption as a solution to modern privacy and malware concerns.
Lastly, TPM isn't completely mandatory for Windows 11. It's going to be disabled for certain foreign markets, because again, it's for encryption. Installation media with TPM disabled is supposed to be strictly for OEM use, but it's very likely this will either be leaked eventually, or the flag for disabling it during setup will be discovered. Either way, this offers you an "out" if you really want to avoid TPM.
If Ivermectin is found to be efficacious, it won't be acknowledged by the US until after at least one vaccine is granted full FDA approval. Otherwise, the existence of an effective therapeutic would result in the loss of emergency use authorization for all COVID vaccines (if the law were followed, which is a toss-up these days).
No, it's a much more boring dystopia than that.
As someone who works in pharma, (some of) the industry isn't maliciously evil, but rather bureaucratically evil. Companies don't develop drug products with the intention of hurting their consumers; that's just bad business. Instead, products are developed with an eye towards maximizing revenue within the confines of FDA's approval and exclusivity practices.
In short, this usually manifests as a combination of regulatory games, liability avoidance, and a preference for chronic treatment. If FDA offers a pathway with lower regulatory overhead, the industry will take it. If a minimally efficacious drug is approved by FDA unexpectedly, the sponsor will happily accept the approval. The emergency authorization has shielded vaccine manufacturers from all liability, so usual concerns about adverse events instead receive minimal attention: the liability that usually exists for unlabeled side effects and contraindications has been removed. Exclusivity also comes with the process here, since there will be no generics for unapproved drugs.
And lastly, chronic treatment. Why would the pharma industry want to kill you, when you can get a booster every year instead?
All COVID vaccines in the US plausibly carry a greater risk than other, existing vaccines, simply because we don't know how to label them to avoid preventable adverse events. There may also be greater risk inherent to the accelerated development of these vaccines, which is one of many unknowns that muddy the picture. The risk-benefit calculus is different for everyone, but if you're under the age of 50, it's likely unwise for you to be vaccinated today. But those who do choose to be vaccinated won't die en masse; that was never a realistic outcome.
they're following 2 distinct testing and treatment protocols for the vaccinated vs the unvaccinated.
This is one of the most insidious aspects of the current narrative. Why even worry about vaccine efficacy, when you can simply change your test protocol to get the outcome you want?
Today, just a few years after Republicans passed a massive tax cut that disproportionately benefited the wealthy
I'm really tired of this narrative. Everyone would love the Trump tax cuts if they had any other name attached. It's not hard to glance at the changes, and see that most low and middle class families save a measurable amount of money under the tax cut. It's even worse when some politicians portray repealing them wholesale as a win for the middle class.
If they get FDA approval, the public will have access to the entire approval package. This includes correspondence with the drug sponsor, the summary review, statistical review (including raw study data), and other departmental review.
Try looking up something you've been prescribed here, to see how much data you can access: https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cder/daf/index.cfm
I agree, I don't see how this is any different from charging people more for being unvaccinated or unmasked.
French Fries
*Freedom Fries
Last I checked, none of the sponsors had submitted a BLA yet. Even on an accelerated pathway, FDA review typically takes at least 6 months. It's possible these get rushed through in actual record time, but if they handle the process correctly (even if approval is a certainty), it won't happen until 2022.
Also, study completion is 2023 at the earliest, for all vaccine sponsors.
This was a very low turnout primary election, that's probably the only reason all ballot measures passed. Many people didn't even know there was an election (not much media coverage), and of those who did know, a significant number of them didn't feel motivated enough to vote. I haven't seen a final number yet, but anticipated turnout was around 25% or less.
Governor Wolf already announced a rollback of all restrictions at the end of the month (except masking, which hinges on vaccination). This was seen as a sudden move given how strict he has been, but was likely done to make it look like it was his own decision, rather than allowing his emergency powers to be rescinded under this new amendment.
a drug that doesn't even have FDA approval.
This right here is the glaring problem, and many try to deflect by calling you an antivaxxer. An unapproved drug might be perfectly safe and efficacious. Or it might have multiple safety issues which require warnings up and down the package insert. The point is that we don't know, and the data isn't available yet.
And for anyone who wants to appeal to expert authority here, I've actually dealt with the FDA application, review, and approval process. So I fully understand the difference between an approved drug product and one under EUA.
lose his Ivy League scholarship
Only the best and brightest.
Extremely likely, between the unchanged venue and the number of politicians who felt the need to weigh in (Mayor, Congresswoman, President).
But the damage is done. We were already (sadly) moving in this direction, but this is a watershed moment. This verdict cements that your rights vary based on your skin color, and inflects severe damage to police departments across the country. There are resignations happening now, and good luck hiring white police officers for as long as this trial remains in memory.
People complain about every Windows release, especially media outlets. I have Windows 11 on the laptop next to me for testing, and the vast majority of complaints are overblown for clicks.
There are really only two negative points. The first is the simplification and modernization of the UI, but only if you're a power user. A lot of the menus that were a hodge-podge of 10 and 7 UI elements are now unified with a single UI. This is more cohesive and easier to navigate for the average user. The downside is that some items now take more clicks to access (ex. power settings) and others are gone entirely (ex. some taskbar customization). The moved items won't matter much once you get set up, but the few items that have been changed or removed may be a loss for some users (ex. anyone currently using their taskbar on the side of their screen).
The second negative point is the stringent system requirements. Some computers that are new-ish are ineligible for the upgrade, and although you can bypass the requirements, it'll be unsupported. I don't think this is the big deal people have made it out to be. If you like Windows 10, keep using it. It's still supported for years and isn't going away anytime soon. It's better to have a functional OS with new features instead of a bloated one weighed down by legacy support.
For positive points, I think there a lot. It's a free upgrade to start, and still works with 7 keys (even if unofficially supported). Overall performance is improved. By moving widgets to their own display, the live tile start menu mess is gone. A clean install lacks the unnecessary extras that came with Windows 10. The new UI is largely better (did anyone like 10's file explorer ribbon?) with features exposed in a more usable way (battery trending in the Settings app vs. Windows 10 having it in a command line utility).
I'd argue Windows 11 is a fairly small change overall, especially in comparison to some previous releases (8 and Vista in particular). Navigating the OS should be intuitive to a Windows 10 user, opposed to the re-learning required in the past. There's really not much of consequence to argue or complain about, so I imagine most media outlets will lambast the UI, as they do every generation.