... there are somethings that are often left out of the pricing
Another example that gets skimmed over or ignored is the massive cost of decommissioning a nuclear power plant. It typically ranges from $280 million to $2 billion, depending on the technology used. More complex plants can be up to $4 billion. And the process can take 15 to 30 years to complete.
Yes, that's psychological projection.
But in these situations, people are referring to the technique of propaganda projection.
Sure, anyone can sign with a key. Having THE key is the extraordinary part.
... usually...
"The Jr. Dr. in the dept. of ABC Ltd. who weighed 180 lb., read p. 6, 11, etc."
Yes and YYYY-MM-DD can potentially be interpreted as YYYY-DD-MM. So that is an zero argument.
No country uses "year day month" ordered dates as standard. "Month day year, " on the other hand, has huge use. It's the conventions that cause the potential for ambiguity and confusion.
That is great for your team, but I don't think that your team has a size large enough to have any kind of statistically relevance at all. So it is a great example for a specific use case but not an argument for general use at all.
Entire countries, like China, Japan, Korea, etc., use YYYY-MM-DD as their date standard already.
My point was that once you adjust, it actually isn't painful to use as it first appears it could be, and has great advantages. I didn't say there wasn't an adjustment hurdle that many people would bawk at.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_date_formats_by_country
DDMMYY is perfect for daily usage.
Except that DDMMYY has the huge ambiguity issue of people potentially interpreting it as MMDDYY. And it's not straight sortable.
My team switched to using YYYY-MM-DD in all our inner communication and documents. The "daily date use" is not the issue you think it is.
I have never said or intended to imply that there were no advances made in the last 20 or 30 years.
This would be great news if it was commercialy viable, but it isn't. It NEVER is.
That's pretty definite by any measure.
But I get it. 99% of the announcements go nowhere. And it's worse if an announcement is just hype or hyperbole. However, in science we have to do the 99% to find the 1% of true advancements.
So ~~of~~ if your point is just that you don't like the hyperbole, then using hyperbole yourself is not doing yourself any favour. Of course people are going to be more measured and realistic in reply to your blatant over-statements and denials.
It doesn't matter what the majority wants in regards to your claim of no deaths. That's just unfullfilled hopes and wishes.
We're talking about the reality right now. And the reality is that the repeal has directly given the "extremists" the power to cause more maternal deaths, as you just acknowledged.
Again, you're talking about different issues.
They're separate arguments from your original claim that RvW is not life threatening.
And while risk of death is fortunately relatively low in the US, it's only one of the many negative consequences of the repeal.
Many women survive the birth only to be inflicted with any one of a range of physical medical issues, including life long disability and chronic pain.
There's also deep mental issues that arise.
Likewise, there are the potential negative health concerns for the baby to consider.
On top of that, there's all the many socio-economic problems.
I'm not saying there are easy answers to all this, but I'm not minimizing the issues either.
One in 3,000 women die from pregnancy or birth complications in the US each year.
Making women remain pregnant inevitably causes deaths.
Yep, and before Pelosi, Trump said it was Nikki Haley who caused it.
Man, I just need Trump to blame Taylor Swift for the whole thing, and then my Insurrection-Bingo card will be full!
At the risk of getting political, you should expect that to go up under Trump. The tariff war with China during his first term kept panel prices high, and it's going to be worse this time. And that's not his only policy that will affect pricing.