Am I missing something? I only see the AI overview as an option after clicking the “try new features” lab logo. Are some versions of Google search forcing this feature currently?

Just to be clear, did she recommend that specific clinic? I’m not a fan of her past work but I think it’s a stretch to blame something like this directly on her.

The beauty and skincare industries have tons of claims flying around that are less-than-validated but going to a facility that uses basic precautions is probably still a good idea.

As an additional data point here, the American Academy of Dermatology Association still has a page up with more info about the procedure. It makes it clear that it’s unproven but it’s supposed to be your own blood that’s used for the procedure. It ends with a recommendation to talk to your dermatologist to decide if it’s right for you, much the same as any medical advice found online.

From their page:

"Few studies conducted in people

All these benefits have created high demand for a procedure that has little evidence to back it up.

Few studies have been conducted because the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) doesn’t require the large, complex studies necessary for new drugs. Since PRP uses needles and a centrifuge, the FDA classifies PRP as a medical device. The rules for medical devices are less demanding."

Splintered media environment means we don’t actually have a shared set of facts to discuss with people from the other side anymore. We can’t have normal conversations when we can’t agree on the basic facts on the ground.

Hunting down Catholic priests

Turns out they were basically bounty hunters for Catholic priests during Elizabeth I’s reign.

“Really? How about dying for it?”

What’s the old lingers?

Real moderates are mostly just low information voters who don’t spend much time thinking about politics to develop an ideology or world view.

The generally accepted political narrative is that these sorts of voters mostly just care about the economy.

Lots of people call themselves moderates but consistently vote Democrat or Republican and just differ from their party on a couple issues.

*Edited my language to be a little fairer about that second group

Maybe no one should see it?

There’s pretty widely documented evidence that slaughterhouse work is also harmful to mental health.

(Link is to sagepub)

If French troops were sent into Ukraine and were then hit by Russia, would that then trigger NATO agreements?

Article 6 says:

"For the purpose of Article 5, an armed attack on one or more of the Parties is deemed to include an armed attack:

on the territory of any of the Parties in Europe or North America, on the Algerian Departments of France 2, on the territory of Turkey or on the Islands under the jurisdiction of any of the Parties in the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer; on the forces, vessels, or aircraft of any of the Parties, when in or over these territories or any other area in Europe in which occupation forces of any of the Parties were stationed on the date when the Treaty entered into force or the Mediterranean Sea or the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer."

Aware this might be a situation where the spirit of the agreement ends up being more important than the legalese.

The problem with the Senate is that it gives land more power than people. The weight given to a Senate voter in a less populated state like Montana is like 40x that of a voter in a state like California. Abolishing the Senate would move the power of each voter closer to equality. Anti-gerrymandering measures would get you the rest of the way there.

I think taxes on financial shenanigans like carried interest, inheritance, and capital gains would probably be more effective than taxing luxury goods. Most rich people don’t actually spend the majority of their money on physical things. Mostly they just shuffle it around into various instruments to avoid taxes and maximize returns.

Nah, it’ll find food no problem. The legal liabilities are the real kicker.

Imagine being this much of a jerk over a webcomic

Explaining a joke never makes it funny.

Also, you’re calling a joke low-brow while also admitting you didn’t understand it.

Do you also need me to explain why that’s a self-own?

Make them open and close in a circular pattern like a camera aperture and I’m in

I hear you. Hope the administration hears you too, for all our sakes.

I agree there’s a problem, and I agree about supporting progressive candidates when available.

I think this is being taken as the only option mostly because a lot of strong progressive voices sat out this primary.

Fair enough, to your point about people on Lemmy planning to make mistakes in November. I suspect those people aren’t the same ones voting uncommitted in the primary, though.

I mostly see those as motivated progressives trying to raise an alarm so Dems can course correct here. If Dems listened, they might give us more ammo to persuade those Lemmy users who aren’t on board.

I’d say the idea of using the primary to voice concerns about what’s happening in Gaza is the least harmful path for people who really care about stopping fascism in both countries. Dems need to really hear that there is a problem that needs to be addressed, and voting uncommitted is literally the least you can do.

Dems stand to lose a lot of votes if they continue to be silent for the “hug Bibi” policy.

Also, sorry, but I don’t understand what alternative you’re suggesting for this course-correction. Can you clarify?

For the record, my proposal is to hash this conversation out during the primaries and then go all-hands on deck for Dems in November. Because we have to.

If we find people who regret it, do we then need to ban it? Is there a certain threshold of regretful people we need to meet?

Do you expect a lot of people to regret something that happened to them before they were capable of forming memories?