HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Shermann » Journal
Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 20 Next »

Shermann

Profile Information

Member since: Sat Feb 22, 2020, 12:55 PM
Number of posts: 4,896

Journal Archives

Here's what the unvaccinated can expect from taking Ivermectin to treat Covid

Joe Rogan and Aaron Rodgers famously took Ivermectin to treat their Covid infections instead of proactively getting vaccinated.

In terms of probability, here are the likely outcomes from taking the various therapeutics:

Ivermectin: survival likely
Hydroxychloroquine: survival likely
Monoclonal antibodies: survival likely
Remdesivir: survival likely
Zinc: survival likely
Vitamin C: survival likely
Vitamin D: survival likely
Drink bleach: survival likely (this is really going to suck though)
Take nothing: survival likely

Even if you have every risk factor possible, I don't know that the probability of death ever reaches 50%. That's not to downplay the risk, however.

Now Joe Rogan has attributed his recovery to his treatments. This is an example of a survivorship bias fallacy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias

Sanjay Gupta was on Rogan's show recently and didn't call him out on this.

The difference between Mr. Rogers and Mr. Rodgers

Mr. Rogers: Wants you to be his neighbor
Mr. Rodgers: Back off, woke mob!

Mr. Rogers: Learns science from Bill Nye the Science Guy
Mr. Rodgers: Learns science from Joe Rogan

Mr. Rogers: Believes periods of losing produce the greatest strivings toward a new winning
Mr. Rodgers: That's sounds like a loser talking!

Mr. Rogers: Believes real strength has to do with helping others
Mr. Rodgers: Believes real strength comes from lifting weights

Choose your doom on your next flight!

Which of these two enemies one may encounter on a plane makes for the least shitty trip?

Republicans really do believe that government can't solve problems

That's why they focus on manufactured issues like caravans, abortion, and CRT. It's hard to really tell if anything got done. They strayed into dangerous territory with the promises of a free border wall and great health care, and you see how that all turned out.

Contrast that with Biden's ambitious and testable Build Back Better Framework.

Interestingly, right-wingers tend to be big big supporters of the military. I've asked them why the military doesn't count as a government program which solves problems (this gets crickets). So how exactly is an aspiring right-winger to know which are the "good" government programs and which are the "bad" ones? Well you see, they generally can't work this out themselves with any sort of consistent conservative logic. They must wait for the relevant talking point to be developed by Those Who Decide Such Things.

Pet Sematary 2019 SPOILERS

Amazon has this in 4K for $2 so I was tempted to watch it last night. I am generally not a fan of reboots. I've read the book and seen the 1989 original. The runtime is about the same as the 1989 version. It tracks very closely for the first half or so, almost boringly so. There is a twist and then it diverges a bit. So there are some aspects there to keep it interesting.

The pacing feels a bit quicker than the original at first. Many elements are cut out like the dispute between Louis and Amy's parents and the nanny. Pascal is dialed back quite a bit.

It looks good, but is a bit dark and dreary and doesn't benefit much from the 4K resolution.

The reveal about Amy's sister is less dramatic, as is the death of the child on the highway. The sister is reimagined as mostly being thumping sounds coming from upstairs (and a bizarre scene involving a dumbwaiter?)

John Lithgow was solid, but I preferred Fred Gwynne as Jud. There was that important question and conversation about burying people that didn't make it into this version. Why cut that? Jud gets drugged in this version which seemed unnecessary.

There is a bit more time for the undead monsters at the end. It's no small task to turn these adorable children into fearsome ghouls.
In King's nightmarish vision, the resurrected are quite creepy and know things they shouldn't know. This aspect is lost in both movies. Both have them flash between cute and corrupted. This version also imparts the daughter with an upgraded brawling ability.

What would it be like living with a child who was raised from the dead? There are these moments between the father and the daughter which end up being mostly wasted opportunities to explore that more deeply. There is some creepiness here, but it just isn't King-sized.

So it's a mixed bag. The original was probably the best of the King movie adaptations, so the reboot seems mostly pointless.

Monster Mash - Geoff Castellucci

If you had SATV in the 90's, you were somebody!

I was envious of my friends who had DIRECTV back then. The guide was a wonder to behold. Cable TV was reasonably good at the time, too.

Fast-forward to today. SATV is lagging behind in 4K adoption. I believe DISH has like two 4K channels. Blackouts due to carriage disputes are commonplace. In just the past year, DISH has blacked out NBC and FOX in my area. The amount of time devoted to commercials has been steadily increasing, making live TV barely watchable. Many of these OTA/CATV/SATV channels seems to be glorified advertisements for the corresponding streaming services (and prescription drugs). CBS reserves their best shows like Star Trek: Picard for their CBS All Access subscriptions. AMC will broadcast one series of Creepshow, but withhold the others for AMC+. Disney is doing the same with Disney+.

So if you have SATV, you are not watching the premium content any longer. You are not the envy of your friends, and your costs for this service in decline have risen faster than inflation. It's a lose lose lose.

Grant miniseries

This 3-part miniseries was on the History Channel last year, and I just watched it. It's pretty decent, kind of like a Trader Joe's version of the Ken Burns documentary. There isn't nearly as much archival footage employed. There are a handful of photos of Grant that you will see again and again. The actor who plays Grant nails it. There are way, way too many shots of him smoking cigars, however. This is based on a book, and it is a kind of glorified book on tape. There are some recreated battle scenes that don't really capture the grandness of it all. Lincoln comes across as this dorky, irrelevant character. What's up with that? Jefferson Davis isn't even in it.

Grant is portrayed as this tactically brilliant uber-general, but the series doesn't completely demonstrate that. Mostly it seems like Grant wins a war of attrition through sheer relentlessness and total war tactics. He was certainly brilliant when compared to his bumbling predecessors. The timeline is longer than "The Civil War", so there are some interesting bits about West Point and his presidency in there.

3/5 stars

What tool do Trumpers use for the purpose of gaslighting?

MAGA-nesium fire starters!

I know the cause of China's coal shortage!

Santa is stockpiling coal at the North Pole for the stockings of all those naughty anti-vaxxers and anti-maskers on his list.

Ho Ho Ho!

Go to Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 20 Next »