eisfeld

There is also the possibility that the seller is not being honest when they claim that Samsung does not have replacement parts anymore. Have seen that a couple of times myself. I would definitely ask Samsung directly. After all it's them who is giving the warranty.

I think from all the posters you are the one with the most mind numbing amount of "it's all a conspiracy" posts. Not just here, not just on the topic of Covid but nearly every single one of your posts on any topic. Zero facts, zero sources and zero value. Had to call you out on it after reading that latest post.

This is a lie. You can totally link to sources not linked to "the government" or "the corporate media". Go link to something from an academic source. It's typical for the conspiracy theorists to write "you can easily find it", "just google it", "there is a webpage", "suggest you look for" etc. No! Post the link. Yes I've heard of it. What exactly are you trying to say? I've noticed you are trying to insinuate often but don't clearly spell it out. Favipiravir was added even before Ivermectin and that study is also not finished yet. Studies can take multiple years if done very thoroughly and under changing conditions (new strains all the time). And now you can see why the people doing the Principle Trial are trying to be very careful in their work. There have been many trials, especially the ones showing Ivermectin in a positive light that had severe issues. They don't want to repeat that. AstraZeneca sold the vaccine on a non-profit basis and worked with other manufacturers to produce and distribute it in their local region. The Gates Foundation said the claim that they urged Oxford to sign exclusive rights to AstraZeneca is not true. All they did was advise Oxford to team up with one of the big manufacturers to get the vaccine out asap and in big enough quantities. Less than 2% of Oxfords funding came from private industry. https://www.theguardian.com/science/2021/apr/15/oxfordastrazeneca-covid-vaccine-research-was-97-publicly-funded What a shame, your sources have again been removed by the evil overlords! So I guess I need to take your word for it. On the other hand we have the word of William Campbell himself where he complains about people publishing fake information claiming he said Ivermectin was effective against Covid: https://drew.edu/stories/2021/09/09/drew-university-nobel-prize-winner-refutes-ivermectin-meme/

Can you substantiate that somehow? To blanket dismiss all of corporate research as not adding much knowledge of worth to the world is an outrageous claim. By the way, this study is not a corporate research study.

So you trust a few anonymous random people on the internet who have no relevant education or work experience nor do they use any kind of proper methodologies more than thousands of people who spend their life researching in the relevant field, have had proper medical education, put their names behind their results and publish these together with the exact methods and setups they used for others to scrutinize. Got it. BTW from one random internet fella to another: I've had really good results with this new Raspberry Schweppes. Haven't been sick a single day since I started drinking it.

Yea plus the white-black curb marking means longer duration parking is permitted. Plus a rectangular mark designates a parking zone. It's a <deleted>ty thing to do by the shop but I believe it's legal. To be fair, their bikes don't even take much more space than a single car.

Without saying anything about Joe Rogan specifically because I haven't seen much from him... I'll never understand why so many people take medical advice from an entertainer. I suggest they go to the nearest circus next time they have a broken bone. Just baffling.

Just sounds like conspiracy babble to me. Show me one trustworthy study that shows Ivermectin does help with Covid. You are just throwing around accusations without substantiating them. I showed you where you can read in the study the exact math that explains why the results are still statistically significant. Can you please explain why you think the number is too low? If it has no effect on viral load then in what way would it be effective in treating Covid-19? Please explain. Why do you claim it has been dropped? That study you are referring to ("PRINCIPLE" trial) is a large scale multi-year study that investigates multiple potential treatments. The last update from 2022 shows the trial for Ivermectin is on-going after a few others had been finished. https://www.principletrial.org/news/the-principle-trial-two-years-on "The PRINCIPLE Trial has led the way in evaluating treatments for COVID-19 in the community over the past two years. It has tested five potential treatments so far, with a further two, favipiravir and ivermectin, still being studied in the trial." No, what I look into is if the results have been properly peer reviewed and seem to gather consensus amongst the medical science community. I don't care who funded it, if the name of the researcher started with an A or if it was done in a pink building. What matters is if the methodology was correct and ideally others can reproduce the results to form a concensus.

Maybe because the positive articles are not factual or from questionable sources? I haven't seen anything proper showing that Ivermectin does indeed help with Covid-19. The study referenced here involved a total of 205 patients. If you look at the results and calculate the margin of error it's still unlikely that the results are significantly wrong. A bigger sample size would help sure but you made it sound like you are questioning the result due to the sample size. On pages 10-11 they talk about this and explain the exact math which shows at what number of patients you can stop because the result is statistically significant.

This is a misunderstanding on your part. I marked bold the part that you added. The real claim stops at "90% effective". It does not mean that it protects you with a 90% chance from getting the virus. The percentage is the vaccine efficacy which defines the relative rate of contracting the disease and NOT the rate of getting infected with the virus nor the rate of spreading it to others. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaccine_efficacy

You didn't understand what I said. I said there are no absolute guarantees that they stop it 100%. Of course they reduce it. And the amount of reduction depends on the virus, the vaccine and the person amongst numerous other factors. You fell into the exact trap I mentioned: jumping from anecdata to absolute expectation or claim. Here another example of what I outlined above. "I got vaccinated and wore a mask but still got covid and so vaccines and masks are useless.". No, that's not how it works. And I'm not going to explain it again. The difference between the two factions is who has the facts on their side. Of course anti-vaxxers wish to impose their point of view on others. Otherwise they wouldn't spew their wild claims over and over. For example claiming that ivermectin can help treat covid-19. They have their own agenda and want to advance that. People were not forced to get an injection and as explained earlier, choices have consequences for others too. You don't live in an isolated bubble without effect on others.

I don't remember the government of my home country Germany claiming that. The overall consensus was always that vaccines help both reduce the severity of the disease as well as reducing the spread. They did not claim it would stop infection completely. That's nothing new, that's how vaccines always worked. And hey for some minority of people they even cause serious issues. It's all a statistical game of big numbers. I have no doubt they helped a lot and are definitely a net positive. Always be sceptical of absolute claims.

I agree it is important that people are given a choice and should be able to refuse treatment BUT choices have consequences. And it gets complicated when someones choice impacts others. Same as drunk driving. I don't care if one drinks and then dies because they drive into a tree. What I do care about is that they are endangering other people while doing so. I think the key word is responsibility. Be free to do something but do it responsibly.

This is a huge problem in our society that just seems to be getting worse. Unlike Covid-19, this one wont pass as easily. It's sometimes really difficult to ignore these people because they are also usually on the very "loud" spectrum by which I mean they'll talk about it constantly and religously. It gets tiring to have to counter their false claims over and over, knowing that many of them will refuse to understand. It's like a psychological virus that spreads and a shocking amount of adults have a inadequate mental immunesystem.

So you didn't go to a hospital but were in a hospitel which is just a hotel where they parked people for covid quarantine purposes. No idea who gave you invermectin there but it certainly wasn't a doctor. That you got well relatively quickly is not evidence of anything. You most likely would have gotten well just as quickly taking nothing at all. Your immune system just did a good job. That's exactly why they do studies with many participants and have to follow methods that include control groups amongst other things in order to get any meaningful insight. Anecdata doesn't tell you anything and actually can be dangerously misleading. We have 2023 and just passed a pandemic. One might lose the faith in humanity when grown up people still don't want to understand and acknowledge simple basic facts. It's like running around and claiming lucky charms work because that one time...

Your friend needs to cut his costs and run from this piece. Why would the land owner try to pressure them to build? This thing has more red flags than a shop selling red flags. I would only consider putting legal pressure on the lessor for potentially misrepresenting the facts of the land. Probably the best would be to get out of the lease contract and walk. It is definitely not going to end well continueing with the project.

Time to think what you could have done to be better prepared when something doesn't work as expected with a bank. PS: why is the title "rant against experts"?

1. A five second internet search shows it's a company making WIFI products 2. I'm convinced you are confused what ethernet is. It's a network connection over cable and pretty sure you didn't look at that. You looked at the available WIFI networks. 3. It's most likely someone else's WIFI where they didn't change the network name from the default. 4. You can't delete or block a WIFI network from the list of available networks. Just ignore it.

Avoid spicy dishes and try spicy dishes. Got it.

And if the system requires a passport number then put the current one in and update it once you get your new passport.

People underestimate electricity all the time, even engineers. Luckily it only burned his finger. There's a reason why RCBOs in a house trigger already at something like 30 milli amps. Now consider that batteries for cars or motorbikes can deliver hundreds of amps in an instant. That's four orders of magnitude more. The stuff doesn't slowly ramp up, it hits you like a truck.

Poor guess work. But go on doubting even when faced with facts. Guess what, other people here might also be earning their money in this industry and could have a itsy bitsy more knowledge. I suggest next time not being so confrontational and condensenting to avoid embarassment like here. Cheers.

His nose does not look broken. Not a scratch on it. Weird story.

Cheers for the update. I could imagine that the Huawei router had some kind of censorship functionality that maybe couldn't get updated because the router was too old. Glad it's resolved but sad that it took over a month for CAT to fix. @Photoguy21 so much for browser compatibility. Maybe the folks in this thread knew a little bit more how things work than you thought, hu? ????

I think we went over this in another thread. If they get insurance coverage then they also get registration. Can't get CTPL without registration as it's tied to the vehicle number. And if they have been registered then all is ok, like any other motorbike. OP asked regarding legal position and that one is clear: either it's a non-registered vehicle and is not allowed to drive on public roads or it's registered and then all the other rules as for any motorbike apply. If police actually enforce these is another question and as you pointed out depends on the location.