> “There was an emphasis both within the [psychiatric] profession and pharmacological companies to make these medications sound not addictive,” he told Psychiatrist.com. Therefore, when SSRIs first became popular, very few systematic studies were conducted on antidepressant discontinuation effects.
Reminds me of the Feynman quote:
> For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled.
It's true that a majority is from the US government through various funding schemes and grants. They're very transparent about their funding and ongoing efforts to diversify. But a little over half coming from US government sources isn't the same as their devs literally being on the gov't payroll; people often talk about Tor as if the developers themselves earn a government salary.
(Funnily, Signal also received major funding from US government sources but very few people seem to question that when lauding Signal.)
It is possible that there was an explosive planted, plus some sort of thermal detonator that was triggered electronically, or even that the battery was used as a thermal detonator to detonate an explosive.
While the Note 7 exploded with quite a bit of force, they never caused injuries like these, and the Note 7 likely had much bigger battery than these pagers had.
We won't know for sure until the devices have been examined.
I can't assert statistical significance, but I can state that as a Net Exporter of Research Documents, I did have for several years a secret plan to work a particular inside-joke acronym into a paper title. I never managed it, but I did look for opportunities and would have taken it if it had been a good match to the content. I have to assume that I'm not particularly rare.
> But then you have to ask if the institutions doing the application verifications were criminally negligent.
That wasn't negligent. It was intentional.
Not by the institution, but by the officers acting against the interests of the institution.
A tiny example out of so many: it is against the interest of a secured lender to inflate appraised value or allow them to be inflated.
Yet, starting at 2004, appraisers across the country started reporting that they were being pressured to inflate appraisals and blacklisted when they refused.
This is clear indication of fraud against the institution and regulators. There is simply no honest reason to inflate appraisals.
> Not by the institution, but by the officers acting against the interests of the institution.
The institution made a bunch of money. In the ghoulish way banks behave, the institutions interests are only making money. The officers were acting in the interest of the institution the way they understand them.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=FF258xH5bNw
The video is not authentic, but it should have been.
reply