War Room Lounge v131: A web novella

Status
Not open for further replies.
But then why stop/lessen now and let that case and death toll climb?

It’s not like we’ve had a breakthrough treatment. Hydroxyclotoquin is a bust and resmedir can shorten recovery time of those who would recovery anyways, but last study I saw showed no actual decrease in fatality
I'm not going to try to explain my lay understanding of the entire public health strategies of entire countries.
tenor.gif

So, maybe an example will help. My province had zero deaths, and only 27 cases in a population of 150,000 and there were no community spread cases anyone is aware of. As more people get it and presumably--though of course there's a lot of uncertainty there--gaining immunity, as contact tracing is ramped up, as testing is more widespread, it will become increasingly easier to limit spread of it here as we gradually re-open and there's no reason to believe we'll experience anything like the typical number of sick and dead if we did nothing (even if hospitals never faced any resource issues) between now and when a vaccine becomes available.

And yes, I have more than that to support my argument. I had other sources to back my claim than my own say-so but they aren't at hand at the moment. Posted one in one of the coronavirus threads a while back. I'm tired of this fallacious argument. All these graphs have captions that say they assume the total numbers will be the same but with a flatter curve. That's fine if you're trying to make the point that flattening the curve will help ease the burden on medical resources. But you can't just assume that if your question is, "Will the total number of sick and dead be the same in both cases?" And the math doesn't back that up. As more people get sick, transmission is reduced, as contact tracing improves, transmission is reduced, as testing becomes more widespread, transmission is reduced. This all contributes to an overall reduction in sick and dead until a vaccine is found.
 
Not really surprising. A lot of the online recipes to make TATP are extremely faulty, and presumably deliberately so.
Not to mention you have to not be a moron when using it. A kid in my year at high school lost fingers, vision and hearing packing it into a rocket (it's pressure sensitive, especially when you use one of the internet recipes which leads to an abundance of unstable isomers).
Of course this was back in the '90s when the recreational use of high explosives was about on par with illegal fireworks, and you could rock up to chemical supply stores in school uniform with an explosives recipe you'd printed off from a bulletin board and just ask for what you needed.
<{fry}>
 
I don't know this game. Do the letters have to be touching each other?

Yes, can't reuse them, but you can move in any direction. Boggle was the original (and that's a pic of it), but they have Boggle With Friends, and MSFT has Wordament that allows you to play against ~200 people at a time (whoever's on). Used to be over 800 regularly, but they had some problem and it was down for a while, and only a portion returned.
 
Well he is objectively the best one, hardly a controversial take. Am I missing some context here?
Objectively better than Bruce Lee? Or Segal or Norris or Van Damme? As in, inarguably better?
 
Objectively better than Bruce Lee? Or Segal or Norris or Van Damme? As in, inarguably better?
Yes because he was the director, choreographer, and lead actor in his films. He's one of the greatest talents in cinema history for those reasons IMO.
 
Yes because he was the director, choreographer, and lead actor in his films. He's one of the greatest talents in cinema history for those reasons IMO.
Hey, I love Jackie Chan. But there are arguments to be had about who’s the best martial arts movie star of all time. I’d lean towards Bruce Lee because he made it all happen and he’s the guy everyone ever would think of first when asked. In any case it’s hardly obvious.
 
Yes because he was the director, choreographer, and lead actor in his films. He's one of the greatest talents in cinema history for those reasons IMO.
But it was just martial arts movie stars, not overall talent. Bruce Lee was a better martial arts actor than Jackie Chan, but Jackie Chan was a much better movie star. His comedic timing was wonderful.
 
Objectively better than Bruce Lee? Or Segal or Norris or Van Damme? As in, inarguably better?
Of course nothing is inarguable but as a martial arts based filmmaker I think Jackie Chan rules. As much as I love Bruce Lee his films look almost comical today. The 80s trio comes across pretty ham-handed in retrospect too.

Chan performed a ton of very, very risky stunts for the camera that were hard to believe and has the medical reports to attest to it, it's wildly impressive, the other guys don't come close. Chan's choreography was amazing also.

I'll drop this one off for those who haven't caught it, it's wonderful, it's matrix shit with no cgi-
 
7Bnt.gif

Is Hillbilly allowed?
Having recently finished Ozark season 3, I'm an authority on this. Hillbilly is a compliment as they are a noble people, and the r word that is similar, well that's grounds for killin'.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top