Yes, being specific is more specific. I assume you’re implying that more specific = better. The point of the comenter you replied to is that the specifics of the type of healthcare they are receiving is unnecessary. You shouldn’t need a judge to give your doctor permission to provide you with healthcare. It doesn’t matter what kind it is.
I mean, have you seen/heard her perform? She’s very convincing.
A witch!
What is xManager?
No one is ever horizontal, so no
deleted by creator
Nice I’ll check it out!
Dope, thanks for the rec.
No I only just heard about it. It’s the game the creator of inscription made first right? Do you think it would be fun to play or would it feel like a first draft of inscription?
Not the last one I finished, but most worthy of a shout-out.
Inscription
Such a good game. Such a great story. You can tell how much thought and care when into every aspect of it. One of the most complete and immersive experiences I’ve had in gaming.
Relevant text:
Fact: Those cute fluffy babies are actually a variety of baby rails, including a corncrake. Notice how feathery and soft they look, like a baby duck or chicken? That’s because there are basically two strategies for how young are born. They can be altricial, which means you’re born naked and blind (i.e helpless) or precocial, which means you’re born fully feathered or furred and are ready to go from day one.
Fun fact, most birds that are ground-nesters, so game birds, waterbirds, etc., are born feathered and adorable. Whereas most birds born in arboreal nests are little naked jelly beans. Crows, fall into the latter category as anyone who studies crows, rehabs crows, or curiously peeked into a crow nest can attest to.
No he didn’t. You don’t have to know that you’re taking a placebo for it to be a placebo. You just have to know you took something. Most people think the placebo affect is negated once it is revealed you have taken a placebo. His comment highlighted that the effect can persist despite ones knowledge that it is a placebo.
And like, I knew you were being earnest! Tone is hard to get across on the Internet. But emotions react before the critical thinking can do it’s work =P
I just saw how far above 50% it was since that’s the mark you have to clear. I’ve always thought of elections and other votes that way. Not sure why. Never thought about it. Sure, using the more accurate 13.2% would have proven the point I was making even better, but I didn’t really think that far ahead. I just wanted to give the context that controversial issues trend more toward 50/50 so passing with a 56.6 vote is nothing to turn your nose at. But to answer your question, I subtracted 50 from 56.6.
Honestly, I got defensive and wouldn’t have written any of this if you hadn’t said “what kind of math are you doing” like it wasn’t t obvious what I did. But I guess it gave myself and others the opportunity to understand why we use the total percent and not how far above 50.
Maybe not overwhelming, but it didn’t just squeak by either. For a historically controversial topic such as this 6.6 percent is substantial.
Poor guy. Hope he gets better for his own sake.
“Don’t be polite. Be predictable.” -dad
Hide our stance? The original commenter summarized the article in a way that made their stance clear. They believe the procedure in the article is medical care. They don’t have to state what procedure they’re talking about because it’s in the article.
Your accusation that they’re trying to hide what the procedure is leads me to believe you don’t agree that it is healthcare. So in the interest of having a productive discussion about the topic of this article I will make an argument and ask you what you think.
What is considered healthcare should be decided by medical professional consensus.
Your access to healthcare should not be dependent on a judges approval.
The procedure we are discussing detailed in the article is considered healthcare by medical professional consensus.
Conclusion. Access to the procedure we are discussing detailed in the article should not be dependent on a judges approval.
What do you think?