throwaway5466

I don't see why European artists should self-censor so as not to hurt the sensibilities of Americans just because your country was built on slavery and genocide. Sort out your wounds yourselves and let us live.

(For the record, there are plenty of "black" characters (Numids, Nubians etc.) in Asterix and Baba is the only one with his characteristic. Many of the others are depicted favorably, as the other commenter said)

Yeah. Basically the concept of species is bust taxonomically and largely a social construct at this point. (That is to say, what is a species is what the community agrees to be a species for the sake of convenience)

Both terms are meaningless in our current understanding of systems biology.

You mean "not worse". If almost everyone got cured there's hardly any leeway to be even better.

For people that didn't read: it's "disappointing" because both the control and study groups largely tested negative (93% and 87% respectively). That 87% figure sounds worse than the control but it actually is better than in the French study.

What happened in essence is that almost all cases were mild so the patients almost all got better after a while, with or without medication. This doesn't mean HCQ is ineffective, only that its efficacy couldn't be measured in this instance. And I wouldn't call a study where almost everyone gets better at the end "disappointing".

It's (used to be?) a prophylactic for malaria. Literally billions of people took it. I did it myself when I was living in malarial areas. It does have secondary effect but they're very well-known and for most people the only ill effect is that it tastes incredibly foul.

Slightly off-topic, but if you're in quarantine and wondering how to play wondorous games of Magic, say no more:

https://cockatrice.github.io/

http://xmage.de/

(the latter is way more buggy but has actual rule enforcement, the first is very polished but you have to do everything by hand as though it were a physical board game)

We're already saturated with information. Even if 99% less filtered through paywalls that'd be more than enough to satiate anyone's needs.

Alright, then ban displays of advertising if it has to reach eyes that didn't ask for it, the same way we ban pornography, gore or violent stuff on display.

We would be certainly better off without advertising. We don't need people to tell us to buy things to function in society.

It's very simple actually. No more sponsors, no more covering every square meter of public space with brands, no more commercials on TV, no more ads on websites. People will have to find other ways to make money, no one's entitled to a business model.

>Newspapers would need to be subscription-only or patronage-based.

So be it.

>Distributors become kingmakers. If the incumbent's product is in the grocery stores and the upstart can't advertise, there's no path to entry apart from winning over a distributor.

>Niche products become nonviable. If you can't reach out to your customers, they have to reach out to you. That requires they know (a) they have the problem you solve, (b) you exist and (c) you solve the problem they have. That only happens organically for problems with scale.

Lots of speculation here, as if word of mouth didn't exist. Why is it so necessary that a brand tells me to buy things? Don't people have other ways to reach out to their audience that doesn't invade literally every public sphere, from billboards to websites?