krellor

Most lawyers never litigate or actively engage in matters before a court. There are whole armies of lawyers who do contract law, agreement reviews, general counsel in organizations, tech transfer specialists, etc. These folks advise clients and help manage risk and would never be in a position to need to lie in most cases. Their job is to advise business decision makers, and you don’t need to agree with the decisions made to advise on the risk landscape.

Even outside of that, there is a lot of ambiguity and conflict in large amounts of our statutes and promulgated policy, such that two lawyers can disagree about the application of law and neither one is lying.

The kind of lying that is objectively lying, like suppressing or mischaracterizing facts, are also breaches of their ethical code of conduct and would put them at risk of professional repercussions from the courts or the BAR.

So while there are bad apples like in any profession, most lawyers don’t lie more than anyone else, and probably less given they have incentives to be transparent in their role.

So much depends on what the specific conditions are. Someone else mentioned socks with ruffwear outers, and that also worked well with me ski mountaineering with my dog in the Cascades. In the winter I also had to keep his feet coated in musher’s wax, and vary layers based on conditions. But setting out with a tin of musher’s wax, socks, and outers for the paws should let you handle most scenarios. Musher’s wax is a good fallback as well in the event a booty is lost and you need temporary coverage for a quick run to shelter.

Yeah, I guess they could use the term point-to-point like point of sales systems define it, but it seems a little semantic. If the images are encrypted on the camera device, and only decrypted once the contents reach the secured analysis environment, then I don’t see how this is misleading customers. Even in the context of messaging apps, users understand that the receiver can decrypt and see the message; it’s saying that no intermediary party can.

But good grief, I can’t fathom putting a camera in my toilet. I feel bad for folks that are either too worried about their health, or have such issues that this is helpful. There but for the grace of fiber go I.

One way would be the actual taxes paid on state, county, and municipal employee salaries. That’s going to represent a large source of federal taxes that the state could divert. I’m sure there are other taxes paid by the state that could be withheld.

I get that. But trump has continued to lose cases at the supreme court. Not all of them to be sure. But it clearly shows that it isn’t a complete waste for these agencies to litigate.

In his first term, Trump had the lowest win rate at the supreme Court of any president since FDR.

The average win rate for presidents over that period was 65.2%. Trump fared the worst, with a win rate of 43.5%, followed by former President Barack Obama, who had a win rate of 52.4%, and President Joe Biden, who had a win rate of 56.5% through the court’s 2021 term.

Physical therapy if you have any physical issues at all, massage therapy if you have any chronic pain, occupational therapy if you have specific life skills or mobility needs.

Any preventative screening or vaccines. There are various generic cancer screenings, etc. Get a referral to a dermatologist to do a once over your skin and document any spots of concern.

Muscle mass burns more calories at rest but the effect is very slight. Eating back any calories from exercise will absolutely outweigh any slight change in base total energy expenditure.

Focus first of what you eat, then sustainable exercise, then specific tuning of both.

Like the other person said, getting the ratio and amount is more important than the source. But you should ask yourself why you are taking the supplement? Are you sure you’re not getting enough from your food? Your body can really only prices 20-40 grams of protein at once, so if you are loading up more than that at a time, you are just piking on calories.

Personally, depending on your current weight, you might think about focusing more on weight loss than bulking muscle mass. Absolutely work out of it is helpful, but don’t worry about mass gains while trying to lose fat. You will develop muscles regardless of whether you micromanage your protein intake or not, and you can optimize better after losing some fat.

But again, you need to check, with, and measure the calories in every portion of food until you develop an accurate read on the calories in things. Like peanut butter having about 100 calories per tablespoon (half ounce).

I’ve read through your comments, and highly suggest a food diary for at least a couple weeks ago you really understand the calories in things you are eating.

Yes, your body does modulate its resting metabolic rate over the long term based on things like average daily exertion, food, etc, but that is largely inconsequential to weight loss.

As a rough guideline, you want about 50% of your calories to be carbs, preferably the fiber or complex variety, 30-35% protein, and the rest fat. If you run a lot, then a few more carbs. If you lift weights a lot, then a little more protein.

Protein will help you feel fuller, longer, so I like to go my ratio of protein a bit.

Meals that I enjoy: steal cut oats and peanut butter, pan seared tofu with salad and a light dressing, bean chilli, tacos or tostados using those low carb tortillas, bowl of rice, refried beans, salsa, and guac, etc

But you really, really need to have a good understanding of portions and actual calories. Most people are way off.

Edit: also, some fasting cardio, like a good brisk walk or jog in the morning before eating anything can help accelerate things. But don’t fall into the trap of eating back the calories you burn.

Devil’s advocate: being serious for years and nothing really stuck. Trivializing him by calling them weird seems to be working. Maybe taking the piss out of them is the better messaging to get the broad electorate to think less of him. 🤷‍♂️

My very first comment was in reply to someone who called the NYT headline a lie, and I said that just isn’t true. Subsequently, I said that I think reasonable people can disagree about the quality of the headline, but it was factually correct. I e., the headline is that Vance made a claim, which is objectively true. Then, in the body of the article, they share quotes from interviews with Watz’s former unit members that refute Vance’s claim.

I don’t know know why or how NYT chooses the exact composition of their headlines or what aspects of a story to highlight, but personally as a regular times reader and subscriber, I didn’t read the headline as giving credence to Vance, and found the article very strongly supportive of Watz’s position.

But barring something like a released federal record showing a request for out processing, it still boils down to statements of individuals, which is probably why the times doesn’t directly refute Vance’s claim as false, and instead leans on interviews from the unit and other circumstantial details to refute the claim, because they haven’t had time to authoritatively establish that. They often circle back to such things once they have had a chance to do so, and include it in summary fact checks throughout the political cycle.

If we’re going that route you may as well take issue with the word “average” instead of using mean, median, or mode. Because the lack of specificity there is even greater than leaving off the age modifier.

But the whole thing is a weird pedantic exercise anyway. They are reporting using the standard models in a way that makes sense to the reader.

Did you read the NYT article in question?

The NYT interviewed members from the unit who corroborated Watz’s claim that he decided to run for Congress before deployment orders came through. The leg work I’ve described in this thread was presenting an account of events that contradicted Vance’s claim that he intentionally avoided deployment.

I’m absolutely baffled by some of the responses I’ve gotten, lol.

Yeah, I think that’s a fair headline given the facts.

The defacto standard for economists recording and reporting average and median net worth has been to bucket it by age cohort for at least the last seventy years. Using common meanings of the terms isn’t baiting and switching it intending to deceive or bury the lede.

LMAO, I know it’s auto correct typos, but:

So don’t tax his gag so hard-core cruster.

Is excellent gibberish.

Not really. To do a cross generational comparison, you would look at average wealth of 18-25 year olds in the 80’s to compare it to today’s cohort in that age bracket to show age adjusted disparity. But comparing the average 60 year old to an 18 year old doesn’t mean much when one has had 42 more working years and the other has greater future earning potential.

Of course it’s age adjusted. What good does it do to compare accumulated wealth between a 60 year old and an 18 year old?

So interviewing Watz’s unit members and CO is just repeating lies?

I mean, if you only want to read from sources that make decisions for you, you are free to do so. I value news organizations that report facts and context and let me make up my own mind.

And many papers refer to themselves as papers of record. It is a term of art in the industry referring to breadth of circulation and independent editorial board. And it is precisely those editorial guidelines that prevent them from presenting one person’s claims against another as true verse false.