tangeli

Thanks. I see that is in the linked article. My mistake was to read the article linked in the first paragraph: with the link text 'restricted the approval', thinking that was the details of the restriction.

According to the linked in the article, the restriction is a requirement to revise the warnings

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Food and Drug Administration said Wednesday it has expanded existing warnings on the two leading COVID-19 vaccines about a rare heart side effect mainly seen in young men.

In April, the FDA sent letters to both drugmakers asking them to update and expand the warnings to add more detail about the problem and to cover a larger group of patients.

I don't see any indication that the vaccines are not approved other than that the accompanying documentation must be changed. The companies have now had several months to make the required changes.

The linked article suggests that the conduct of the FDA and resulting requirement to change the documentation was inappropriate. But there is no restriction other than the requirement to update the documentation. Or am I missing something in the article?

and a teacher who was charged but never convicted of sexually abusing a foster child.

What happened to innocent until proven guilty?

There hadn't been an update in more than 3 years, so this isn't really news: just recognizing decisions made long ago.

The headline says she won but the article says:

The bombshell allegation raises a serious question: Did Kamala Harris actually win the 2024 election?

Could Kamala Harris have actually won the election?

Compared with the body of the article, the headline is overstated. There are allegations of suspicious results and a court case going ahead to investigate, but that case is not yet decided.

“Kamala Harris may have won.”

Portions of this article were drafted and/or revised in collaboration with ChatGPT (GPT-4o, Sept. 2024), Anthropic’s LLM Claude (Sonnet, Sept. 2024).

LLM's are tools one can use, not sentient entities with agency and responsibility that one can collaborate with. One might collaborate with the companies that develop and operate them, but not with the tools yourself. No more than carpenters can 'collaborate' with their hammers and nails.

Tragedy of the commons all over again.

Examples is probably the most practical way to clarify. A few to start and add them as issues arise.

All seems reasonable to me.

The only point I might quibble with is "Support for regimes or ideologies that suppress basic human rights.", as pretty much all regimes and many ideologies suppress basic human rights to some extent. It is good that the suppression of basic human rights itself is called out and condemned and not supported but it would be reasonable to support the good things that regimes do in countries like China, USA, Russia and many, maybe all others, support the good aspects of capitalism, socialism, religions, etc. Perhaps you had in mind more extreme regimes and ideologies. Drawing lines is always challenging. No clearer alternative comes to mind immediately. I would be most supportive of prohibiting support for regimes and ideologies where the suppression of basic human rights is a predominant or at least very significant aspect of what they do or promote. But I can't think how to express that clearly in a few words. It wouldn't put my off as-is as, ultimately, moderation is at the discretion of the admins anyway.

Really? You haven't read about the tarrifs yet?

Proper procedure is to send anyone with a tattoo to El Salvador, if I understand correctly. "In a heartbeat", I think was the essence of due process. It was looked into by Trump and his team and they went ahead with it, so it must be legal. Anyone who doesn't want to be oppressed in the US can just get a tattoo. It seems to work.

Maybe other countries should have "reciprocal" detention and deportation of U.S. citizens, until Trump comes begging for a mutual travel agreement.