Looking through that, they seem to leave out what would be the most interesting comparison - expectancy adjusted for stage at detection against time?
Edit Claude suggests the problem is bordering on intractable, but table 7 in this link is probably as good as it gets https://acsjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.3322/caac...
This is an important point and it feels odd that the entire discussion seems to not be able to engage with it, but on another level it might be the same problem. As a long term financial support of the eff I'm starting to get the same awkward feelings that made me question my financial support for Mozilla and Wikipedia. Any time someone views the world through a single lens, it highlights some things and ignores others and it seems like a net loss to the world that everything is being forced into a being judged along a single (increasingly polarised) axis
I hadn't heard of the word either but I sure do have the condition! I was a triathlete at one point, but I would take a very large swing around the marker buoys just in case one might touch me... and the grandparents comment of "big spooky tubes" sent a surge of adrenaline through my body. I feel so seen:)
From an English background, I imagine we are sitting at a meeting. Something that is tabled is between us and under discussion. Something shelved has been removed from the table. What things are Americans visualising here when they say table?
What about if the police had a dedicated fund for arrests.
For the employer - they aren't allowed to sack the employee, but administrative costs of finding temp staff can be claimed from the fund.
For the arrested, all cost of living expenses are covered until trial, but should they be found guilty, this becomes a CPI indexed, interest free debt.
Any pre-conviction incarceration costs where accused is found innocent are also paid by the fund.
This seems to grab most of the data in one account. But does also seem to add a big incentive to find people guilty...
Well the impression I get is the idea of a "cultural" muslim is contested from both within and without the muslim community so I don't think it's quite that clear cut. Who gets to own the labels seems to always be a political battle. You could argue that it is only "reasonable" to use the label for those who hold the beliefs.
Thanks. None of those quite seem to fit the email though. I'm guessing that the allusion in the email must have just been to general Klingon war-like attitudes.
I was wondering if the explicit naming of the weapons was supposed to refer to that exact scene in the Kubrick movie. Which, given it was one of the triggers of the slave rebellion make the original email seem possibly quite weird.
I'm assuming that there is some sort of Star Trek universe remake of the scene from Spartacus, but I can't seem to find it. If so, does it have the same set-up (slave gladiators battling for the amusement of the elites)? I'm not entirely sure this makes sense...
Maybe imagine you're a happily married account manager for a baby formula company and then when you go to professional conferences (of mostly women), every time you try to engage someone or get involved in a group conversation the talk subtly turns to nipple tenderness and mid-term horniness. It makes doing your job and life in general harder than if you were just another woman.
We might be slightly talking at cross purposes. I agree that something hot contains a lot of available energy. I'm making the point that it may not produce any available energy (i.e. inert in the sense of nuclear fusion).
For your point to be persuasive you need to add why temperature and density would increase power. e.g. one could have a core of extremely hot, dense inert material.
While I agree that secret mass sterilization would indeed be bad, I found that article to be extremely non-persuasive in making me think that this is the case.
The complication is vaccines have two benefits.
1. I am less likely to be infected
2. I am less likely to infect someone who can't be vaccinated.
If you want people to leave you alone then you have to convince them that point 2 is less important than something else.