RedditWanderer

All these stories coming out about big crimes from the rich are awfully well timed. If I wanted a one time pass for something, I'd want to get convicted while there's an easy to bribe cheeto king at the helm of the US.

This is nothing new, people expect religion not to be part of the "professional" environment. Dunno if VS code applies.

At the office (big corp) they don't call it the "Christmas Party", it's "the holiday party". They put lights and stuff up but no more Christmas trees/stars etc.. not everyone celebrates christmas so that's fine by me. If Microsoft wants to put a little santa hat on their product that's fine by me too. If I was using some service based in Mexico and they put a little hat on a product for cinco de mayo i wouldn't care. Christmas has other implications so it might be different, dunno

See youre conflating 2 things again, assuming everyone's mad probably.

All those stats are correct, so how could it possibly be that I would say such lies? I must be wrong, how weird.

You're forgetting there are other people in this thread, and someone did misquote it in their argument. Talk about retcon, which you spend 0 minutes explaining but made up half your earlier argument.

The numbers aren't even important. This is not a first time cancer breakthrough, this is a HPV awareness article with a sensationalized title. Nobody was arguing the numbers.

Big businesses know, they even ask people like me to add extra measures in place. I like to call it the concorde effect. Youre trying to make a plane that can shove air out of the way faster than it wants to move, and this takes an enormous amount of energy that isn't worth the time save, or the cost. Even if you have higher airspeed when it works, if your plane doesn't make it to destination it isn't "faster".

We hear a lot about the downsides of AI, except that doesn't fit the big corpo narrative and people don't care enough really. If youre just a consumer who has no idea how this really works, the investments companiess make into shoving it everywhere makes it seem like it's not a problem and it looks like there's only AI hype and no party poopers.

All this relies on retcon, which makes no sense. Easy to just say it in your corner though. I did read the article, but that doesn't fit your narrative. You also had to add that i'm "mad" so it spins your way, when it's others having to attack me direcly instead of making points. Nothing about my comment implies i'm mad except you spinning it that way.

Youre defending people who are saying the article says 94% of these can be avoided, when the article says 94% of cancers occur in those countries.please

Edit: *94% of cancer deaths, wouldn't wanna "retcon my whole argument". This is a bad title for a different problem. We haven't even started with it "being the first time". Youre trying to convince us other people are mad too, go figure.

Within "cervical cancer" theres are many types, in case you didn't know, bruh.

People who get "lung cancer" can get various forms. The article isn't taking about eliminating cervical cancer entirely, not even the one caused by HPV.

Which if you hadnt read, the article is arguing these deaths are mostly preventable in poorer countries as HPV has had a long awareness (and effective) campaign already, it's not even primarily about cancer. The headline sucks.

OP already made that joke.

Imo that only feels good when it's someone who actively causes harm with their stupidy and they finally get justice. In this case I consider it to be more sad than anything else; it's a function of his upbringing, not who he is.

I do understand that this helps eliminate some of the variants. That's not what the headline is saying.

Why not make it an article about HPV that would help with cervical cancer instead of a cancer article about HPV? Because clicks. It still wouldn't eliminate 94, or 99% of cervical cancers, only HPV ones.. Eliminate HPV doesn't sound as good, we can't even eliminate measles.

It says 94% of cancers occur in those countries. That's a far cry from what youre implying.

Edit: I wouldn't call bitching about cancer titles being blown of out proportion "contrarian" either

Lmao, HPV is not the only way you get cervical cancer. "Elimination of a cancer" is just not true. Maybe one specific type of cervical cancer.

It's like saying we can cure colon cancer if we just stopped eating at McDonald's. It's simply not true.

I didn't use the word "cure" in my comment.

Edit: Lmao was for the dwight level "Wrong" like youre unidan or something.

She's not saying she thinks it true, it's a bit worse than that imo. She's saying "many other people say it's true" which I have never heard before. Mignt just be me, but the people who say that are often people who intend to discriminate based on their personal beliefs.

"a cancer" is not one thing, so you can tell the headline is full of shit already, even within the same organs the cancers are different.

This is about cervical cancer, which we can help avoid by avoiding things known to cause it, like preventing HPV with HPV vaccines. This isn't eliminating cancer in any way, at best preventing it