Presumably you might want to give the poor a systemic advantage over the rich in order to balance the system and make it more democratic. Otherwise the rich will have more influence.
...because if there isn't then your democracy will turn into an oligarchy. The advantage needs to be somewhat against the richest and for the poorest if you're going to protect that.
My sense is (call me naive if you like) but if the thing was of value, it would survive (or be reborn in another form) without ads. Donation supported sites (looking at you Wikipedia) or just passion projects would continue.
A firmly-held but poorly-thought-out opinion? How unusual.
Many of the other comments on this thread point out what the "hurt" is, and it is not trivial, neither is it particularly difficult to understand. Unless you choose not to.
Why are you assuming I haven’t read the other threads? Are you really that worried about expressing an opinion? You know this isn’t reddit - you wont get crucified for it.
Relax, stop being so combative and engage in some discussion. Otherwise why are you replying to me in the first place?
Because if you have read the other comments (not threads), and you are capable of reading comprehension, you will be aware that this adds compliance costs for everyone in the space, and is especially disastrous for any small operators that cannot afford to employ people specifically to deal with red tape. "Can't hurt" indeed...
Also, thanks for pointing out this isn't Reddit, I wasn't aware.
GLP-1 definitely doesn’t prevent you increasing your percentage of total calories from protein, and doing regular resistance exercise. That was the advice from my doctor, and while I’m only 2 months in, weekly scans have not yet shown any significant decrease in lean mass. I don’t see any reason why they would, as long as I continue eating protein and lifting heavy things.
Well no, obviously not, but we do have 20 years of data, and aside from a still-tiny-but-slightly-elevated thyroid cancer risk, there’s really not much showing up in that data.
GLP-1 isn’t new - the first trials were 20 years ago & there’s a lot of long term data from its use in diabetes management, prior to the weight loss application.
Ok, sure - but are diabetes patients representative of the whole target market for GLP-1? And there will still be an uncomfortable variable that controls the outcome - patient compliance. That's what makes life insurers woozy.
I didn't have look on the studies but I would not be surprised if a decent amount of participants were completely healthy individuals. And maybe (more from random sampling) some unsuspicious mildly overweight without other problems. Especially in the earlier cohorts of testing.
Right, you should read it though, we're in the weeds over here, it's not just sort of free-assocating chat, we're picking apart specific things about the article. One of them, as I mentioned 4 up, is that the study with the 65% # is confounded because the groupings involve type 1 diabetes, and also, the number rebounds higher than the # who stopped
Didn't he write "no reasonable person doubts that the Holocaust happened" in the blog post you are referring to? That's an....unusual way to deny the Holocaust.
