There was news today that the Senate is considering cutting Medicare in addition to Medicaid, as well as news of major changes to how science funding is sent out to researchers. Also the travel bans for foreign nationals from certain countries.

I’ve heard the concern that employers are worried someone with a PhD who is taking a “lesser” job won’t be around all that long and will continue job hunting for something better. For employers with this mindset, I’d like to suggest: 1) it’s not too hard to beat academia wages; 2) find ways to promote within/add responsibility when people prove themselves

They aren’t setting themselves up for success. Every nurse knows you gotta put the harmonic scalpel on top of the cautery. You need dat space

You shouldn’t be able to smoke outside an ER anyway… People come through there with life threatening problems and need all the oxygen they can get

Call your Senators and briefly tell them what you think about this nomination. Say your name, city or ZIP code, and a brief message about your stance. Senate offices do pay attention to how many constituents are calling them on a topic. Democracy doesn’t end at the ballot box.

It does matter if you want to counter the talking heads all saying the election loss is because of progressives. Dem senators need to hear another voice than that and be pushed to not roll over like the special counsel

Call your Senators, give them your name, zip code, and briefly tell them you oppose these noms. It DOES make a difference! Democracy doesn’t stop at the ballot box, it has to be fought for

deleted by creator

The article doesn’t even mention the most effective coping mechanisms… Phone banking and door knocking. Turn your anxiety into action!

Phone banking and door knocking are evidence-based to improve turnout and at this point the race really is just about getting people to actually vote.

While important info, it’s a long read that doesn’t really provide much new information about “future scenarios” to be aware of.

Nah, this was a concession both Democrats and Senate Republicans were asking for. They hope to have a full budget deal finished before a new administration so there’s a clean slate for either incoming president

Agreed! This is just the beginning, I’m convinced this was the plan all along for most smart devices. I will make an exception for products that can be conveniently operated when an account/app is optional at least.

Kroger and Albertsons own a ton of “other grocery chains.” Classic example of just simply buying up the competition

Am I missing something? There is nothing new in the article. It’s just contrasting Harris’ Senate record and 2020 primary stances with the pragmatic political compromises that the Biden-Harris administration has made over the past 3.5 years because they had to deal with getting things through Congress. Of course the compromises made with Congress are going to be more to the right than what Harris has previously advocated for as her ideal stances, that’s what politics is…

Easy, buy up a bunch of land for conservation

Drosophila geneticists come up with the craziest gene names… My all time WTF is Suppressor of Mothers Against Decapentaplegic (SMAD).

Paywalled, but I’m gonna go with fossil fuel trap. We need to be completely off fossil fuels by about 2050. Any new major natural gas infrastructure being built now is expected to last longer than 2050. Even new residential gas furnaces are probably expected to last around 20 years or so.

It’s hard, but there are more adults in the U.S. alive today who have successfully quit smoking than currently smoke.

Check out SmokeFree.gov for free science-based resources!

We do trials to determine if a new treatment is safe and effective. Let’s say you got a “miracle drug” that cures whatever disease you’re studying, but it is too toxic and kills patients over time. That drug may get hyped up in early development as a miracle cure, but you need to compare it to something else to be sure the toxicity seen is not driven by something unrelated. This is why it’s not ethical to run late stage trials without a standard of care or placebo control arm, because in this case the standard of care would be the better treatment option.

This concept is called equipoise, as in the two treatments are equally poised to provide benefit to patients at the beginning of the trial. Otherwise if you had enough data to know for certain your new therapy is better, then the trial is unnecessary and it should just be a regular medicine/submitted to a health authority for approval instead of wasting >$100 million dollars on another trial.

If you know your investigational therapy is better than a placebo or standard of care, then why do the trial? Just because something is new doesn’t mean it’s good