> The CPT program is about working during a course of study, before graduation, and isn't an immigration program, so what is the relevance of your comment?

The whole reason Indians are in this mess is because they commit fraud to obtain internships at fake companies to obtain H1B, and have a baby ASAP to maximize chance for a green card.

If you want to improve the lives of overseas Indians, perhaps you should first acknowledge the problem.

Until then, better start looking at the UAE Golden Visa.

But I heard even that is becoming stricter in late-2026. Time is ticking.

Do you have a cite for Stanford University owning any private jets?

You can click through the reference in the article, the full text of the paper is free:

> The mean MMSE score change were 1.6 at 48 hours (95% CI: 1.079 to 2.158; p < 0.001), 1.25 at 1 month (95% CI: 0.603 to 1.888; p < 0.001), 1.17 at 3 months (95% CI: 0.343 to 2.01; p = 0.004), 1.28 at 6 months (95% CI: 0.311 to 2.344; p = 0.016) after surgery

> men when they hit 40 naturally lose between 5% and 8% of their total muscle mass a year

I think your numbers might be per decade, not per year?

Oh thank God! You are correct. It's per decade.

I don't think the original assertion is "punching down" on poor people. While you're correct that poverty isn't the "only reason" for high HIV transmission, poverty certainly contributes to it, via lack of access to health care and lack of access to education. How is it less "punching down" to attribute it to social behavior and culture? Isn't needle sharing associated with poverty, or would you also call that "culture"?

I was poor, grew up in social housing.

I did not use drugs.

"I share needles because I can't afford my own" is an INSANE take. Don't shoot drugs in the first place! Poor people are normal humans, they have willpower, agency. It is a rich people myth that poor people are cattle, devoid of any chance of doing the right thing.

It is culture, behavior, social norms. Being poor does not force you to abandon the nuclear family, does not force you to engage in criminal acts. (there is reverse causality though)

In the early 1960s South Korea had a per capita income lower than those of Haiti, Ethiopia, and Yemen, and about 40% below India's. Did all South Koreans become heroin addicts with HIV?

People enjoy drugs, people enjoy sex. If your solution to driving fatalities is not to drive, you have not solved anything.

Not having sex and not doing drugs isn't any sort of "right thing" other than because sex and drugs are dangerous. If sex and drugs were less dangerous (or made not dangerous at all) there would be no reason to tell people not to do them.

The wealthy use drugs and have sex all the time. They just have clean needles and nice doctors. You've completely bought into the moral explanation for poverty - which is that moral decay causes poverty, but poverty does not cause moral decay. But you think that this is a defense of the poor, rather than a defense of the exploitation and contempt for the poor by the rich.

The poor are not worse than the rich even if they do drugs, have sex, or swear on Sunday.

> Don't shoot drugs in the first place

like insulin? should a diabetic skip the insulin? In poor countries I wouldn't be surprised if the majority of HIV infections are not as preventable as you're imagining.

You can moralize, but even if only 10% of HIV infections are unavoidable, you're not contributing to solving the actual problem. (And by unavoidable I mean, unavoidable without investing in more needles, better sanitation, or prophylactics that the people "responsible" cannot afford.)

Thanks for your contribution. Gonna hop on a jet to Zambia tomorrow and tell kids with HIV there that it's their fault they were born with the virus and maybe they shouldn't have shared needles.

assume you have a population of IV drug users. as a society, would you prefer to spend nothing and see them develop HIV, or to spend some and control the HIV?

you don't have to care about the drug users at all. even if you treat them as pests rather than humans, we frequently vaccinate pests for public health measures. pathogens will spill over to populations you do care about, they'll create a drain on the healthcare system, they'll harbor other opportunistic infections. it's not sanitary.

this is completely leaving aside that some drug addicts can and do turn their life around, and that HIV is a horrible illness nobody should have to deal with, even if it's "their fault."

Being poor correlates with adverse health outcomes. If you insist (as you do) that those health outcomes are due entirely to culture and willpower, then you are forced to conclude that poor people have low willpower and are less moral. This is an unprovable assertion, based entirely on your own vibes, and is frankly a cruel thing to say. It basically asserts that these people deserve the things that happen to them, because they were avoidable and entirely due to their choices.

This is not a celebration of human agency. When people are treated badly, they behave badly. It is completely irrelevant that you were treated badly and happened not to behave badly. People are far too complex for you to say "well, we got treated the same, we should have behaved the same".

Lmao “South Korea never had a severe drug problem”

I’ve got bad news for you about methamphetamine in postwar east Asia

the bond example is a return on your money, the profit margin example is a return on other people's money.

If this was copy-pasted, isn't it much more likely that it was copy-pasted from a document describing the performance of the SA3000 chip, than from a document that was written before the SA3000 was developed?

The only overlap from the document with the text you quote is the "106", which is a pretty common mis-formatting issue.

There's a lot to unpack here:

- the warming in the Medieval Warming Period is modest compared to projected modern warming

- The Alps are currently "warm enough" to be crossed without special gear much of the year. Otzi was found wearing multiple layers of hides and furs that would have provided good protection against the elements and is supposed to have been killed in late spring/early summer, not the depths of winter. Glaciers are active things and where he was found could be some distance from where he died.

- Yes the earth has been warmer and colder in the past, climate scientists are aware of these facts, it can also be true that climate is changing quickly in ways that may be very inconvenient for many modern humans.

- Regarding California climate, I don't know who "these same scientists" were, and popular press about climate change is often misleading and superficial. I have lived here for ~35 years and we have had a handful of very wet years but most of that period has been classified as "drought". Yes at the moment we are not but this was a very poor water year and we've benefited from carryover storage from last year. As far as I know, the scientific consensus is still that California is getting warmer and drier on average, and the large year to year fluctuations do not nullify that trend.

Nothing you wrote refutes anything that I said. Comparing actual historical temperatures to speculative temperatures where no models have been accurate isn't science.

Here's a comparison of the Medieval Warm Period with recent temperatures (so no model based speculation).

https://skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=31

For the past ~60 years... with maybe just a bit of slack on the start of that, it would include tremendously impactful things like: - the clean air act and clean water act - endangered species act and restrictions on international trade for protected animals and plants - creation of the EPA, and reductions and regulation of pesticides and herbicides - the emergence of the organic food industry - the Montreal protocol and global reduction in CFC production - contribution to the development of clean energy technology -- you could argue that now the boom in clean energy is just economics in action but that comes after decades of basic science and technical innovation motivated by environmental concerns.

This isn't really the issue, most of the cost of reviewing new drug applications is covered by user fees. And most of the cost and time required for getting a drug approved is in the clinical trials. FDA resources aren't really the bottleneck, the FDA is generally faster than its counterparts in other countries.