abbracadabbra

Great signup flow, except there’s an error when it comes to installing the app at the end. Worked around by installing manually via app store

Well written. OpenClaw appears to be a fad but this writeup suggests pi is worth understanding & using for the long term

Interesting to read that there is little to no legal action that can be taken to halt operations at the plant, which means that unfortunately it may take a long time for this to be resolved.

This is in Austin

> NFT INT LLC is not owned, managed or controlled by Donald J. Trump, The Trump Organization, CIC Digital LLC or any of their respective principals or affiliates. NFT INT LLC uses Donald J. Trump's name, likeness and image under paid license from CIC Digital LLC, which license may be terminated or revoked according to its terms.

It’s interesting that in 2018 we didn’t see any anonymous posts confirming the story. This recent article suggests that knowledge was fairly well spread amongst government agencies and their suppliers. Impressive that the culture of secrecy remains so strong.

Primary sources have been lacking in coverage of this story; is the Communist party that powerful in controlling first hand accounts?

NextDNS

https://nextdns.io/

A choice quote from the wickedlocal coverage:

> Those involved became so concerned that they developed a list of people in California they could frame if authorities tracked the harassment there, Lelling said

It would be interesting to know the middleman involved in hiring BellTroX; surely Exxon didn’t hire them directly but were working with a “public relations” company that took initiative to hire this shady firm. Knowing the middleman might help connect the loose threads

Since this is being repeated multiple times, quoting benmaraschino:

One of these "studies" is a 2-page Google Doc with no real data. Another is the discredited Raoult study, which is under investigation by the journal [1]. Another study cited is also by Raoult's team. The Brazil study (ref. 29) doesn't seem to have passed peer review (yet?) and has severe methodological flaws. Like the Raoult studies, the Brazil study was not randomized, but makes no attempt to control for confounding by indication or self-selection, such as with propensity score matching or similar methods commonly used in observational studies. The last study cited isn't a study, but an article from a local news station.

Since this is being repeated multiple times, quoting benmaraschino:

One of these "studies" is a 2-page Google Doc with no real data. Another is the discredited Raoult study, which is under investigation by the journal [1]. Another study cited is also by Raoult's team. The Brazil study (ref. 29) doesn't seem to have passed peer review (yet?) and has severe methodological flaws. Like the Raoult studies, the Brazil study was not randomized, but makes no attempt to control for confounding by indication or self-selection, such as with propensity score matching or similar methods commonly used in observational studies. The last study cited isn't a study, but an article from a local news station.

Since this is being repeated multiple times, quoting benmaraschino:

One of these "studies" is a 2-page Google Doc with no real data. Another is the discredited Raoult study, which is under investigation by the journal [1]. Another study cited is also by Raoult's team. The Brazil study (ref. 29) doesn't seem to have passed peer review (yet?) and has severe methodological flaws. Like the Raoult studies, the Brazil study was not randomized, but makes no attempt to control for confounding by indication or self-selection, such as with propensity score matching or similar methods commonly used in observational studies. The last study cited isn't a study, but an article from a local news station.

Since this is being repeated multiple times, quoting benmaraschino:

One of these "studies" is a 2-page Google Doc with no real data. Another is the discredited Raoult study, which is under investigation by the journal [1]. Another study cited is also by Raoult's team. The Brazil study (ref. 29) doesn't seem to have passed peer review (yet?) and has severe methodological flaws. Like the Raoult studies, the Brazil study was not randomized, but makes no attempt to control for confounding by indication or self-selection, such as with propensity score matching or similar methods commonly used in observational studies. The last study cited isn't a study, but an article from a local news station.

Since this is being repeated multiple times, quoting benmaraschino:

One of these "studies" is a 2-page Google Doc with no real data. Another is the discredited Raoult study, which is under investigation by the journal [1]. Another study cited is also by Raoult's team. The Brazil study (ref. 29) doesn't seem to have passed peer review (yet?) and has severe methodological flaws. Like the Raoult studies, the Brazil study was not randomized, but makes no attempt to control for confounding by indication or self-selection, such as with propensity score matching or similar methods commonly used in observational studies. The last study cited isn't a study, but an article from a local news station.

Since this is being repeated multiple times, quoting benmaraschino:

One of these "studies" is a 2-page Google Doc with no real data. Another is the discredited Raoult study, which is under investigation by the journal [1]. Another study cited is also by Raoult's team. The Brazil study (ref. 29) doesn't seem to have passed peer review (yet?) and has severe methodological flaws. Like the Raoult studies, the Brazil study was not randomized, but makes no attempt to control for confounding by indication or self-selection, such as with propensity score matching or similar methods commonly used in observational studies. The last study cited isn't a study, but an article from a local news station.

Do other newspapers publish scans of their print editions? From the article, nytimes:

https://static01.nyt.com/images/2020/04/10/nytfrontpage/scan...

Tonnage has the right of way