The world just watched three billionaires make fools of themselves to establish space tourism and I'm sure Russia noticed. This is the director's second launch this year and I can't see the Russian film industry being able to recoup that kind of investment. He must have received approval from the highest ranks in Russia, if it wasn't their idea/bankroll to begin with. Innovative propagandists even if it does seem gimmicky.
>The world just watched three billionaires make fools of themselves to establish space tourism
At most two, surely - Branson and Bezos were rushing to get themselves (in their own untested launch systems) up to the Karman line and drop back down again. Although arguably only Bezos made a fool of himself by acting butt-hurt about flying after Branson.
By contrast, Musk is launching paying customers into orbit on a proven rocket system that launches NASA astronauts to the ISS, same as Soyuz. If somebody's willing to pay for the launch and risk their lives, why wouldn't you let them?
>and I'm sure Russia noticed
Space tourism is hardly anything new for Russia - as far as I know, all space tourists who've flown to orbit so far have done so on Soyuz.
I'm more upset that Roscosmos, in their rush to fly the film set to the ISS, endangered the station.
Lancet is not "respected" after their autism fraud scandal. Re-publishing Russian state-sponsored research is not "confirming those numbers" it's just low editorial standards.
Absolutely. Oreos are vegan and nobody would argue they're healthy. As processed as some "meat alternatives" may be, it's still a better path than meat for health.
Objectively, nicorette is unhealthy, but doctors will recommend it all day if it helps you quit smoking.
Nicotine is a stimulant, and stimulants are not without side-effects. There isn't a stimulant known that doesn't put stress on the cardiovascular system. Nicotine increases blood pressure, heart rate and vasoconstriction.
Reminder that a low-grade stimulant like caffeine is considered to have deleterious effects.
The local news and hospitals were citing a recent upward trend in the numbers of teens with a certain lung symptom. They linked it to vaping in teens. At the very end of the segment they said the lung issue could be caused by nicotine alone being inhaled, didn’t matter it if was vape or smoke.
Which would be a ridiculous use case. Everything is deadly at a high enough dose. No one in their right mind is vaping pure nicotine. It could kill you via skin absorption alone.
It's an immunosuppressant. Which can be useful at times, but the immune system has an important function and you probably don't want it suppressed except as a specific measured response to a particular problem.
>At present, it is not possible to draw a conclusion whether nicotine itself may act as a complete carcinogen
If you're going to quote it, include the bits that don't agree with you as well. The paper basically says "it may affect the role of other cancer causing agents, but we're not sure yet. We cannot say that nicotine is, in and of itself, a carcinogen"
Also reach back in time 30 minutes and remember that you claimed nicotine is, by itself, a "well known carcinogen", which is false.
I appreciate the traction this received. I'd like to note that I am not a developer by trade and I'm certainly not a designer. Java isn't even my primary language. I am just somebody interested in privacy and security and this was a fun project that should be useful. Any contributions to the code or design are very welcome. I hope this helps others and thank you.
Google requires a comprehensive privacy policy for apps and there are plenty of policy generators, but they don't make their own library specific privacy policies easy to find in my experience. Just using Google Play has privacy implications and it's a mess trying to track down and link proper policies without seeming like your app is stealing users social security numbers. It's possible I just have no idea what I'm doing, but I shouldn't need to hire a lawyer for an app that collects zero data by itself.
Perhaps they too should create blacklists of suspected communists to be reported to the government for extrajudicial consequences. Then France can enjoy freedom like America.
FWIW, everybody pretty much agrees that McCarthyism was bad. And, more importantly, it's a thing of the past. To be honest, litigating present issues by citing the past positions of people who are now mostly dead is kind of odd and nonsensical.
Also, a "blacklist" is little more than a name for a list of boycott targets. Boycotts, and the expression of who to boycott, are fundamental to liberty. That liberty results in people using liberty for good and for bad is not a sensible reason to dismiss liberty.
> Le Monde reported that the list was "problematic" under French law which prohibits the construction of a database "revealing the political and philosophical opinions of a person without their consent".
