Hm, just like anything else, the dose makes the poison. I had two Coca-Colas mixed with vodka, plus a beer, and barely felt a thing. That was for an entire evening, and I weigh about 180 pounds. I can't imagine what would happen if an average girl weighing 110 pounds downed that much. Besides, everyone reacts to alcohol differently. A colleague of mine downed three shots of Jack Daniel's, some Jim Beam, and a Pepsi in one go, and he was wasted.
I feel like I've reached a turning point. Everything has plateaued; there's zero momentum. My finances were driven by two major shifts: first, a complete professional pivot after my Master's, then the dot-com boom. Now, those eras are behind me and things have gone stagnant. I'm weighing my next move (-> Ronald Castillo5: Thanks for starting the "Money Game" thread 😉). Something has to change, it's just a matter of figuring out what and how.
Ronald Castillo5, you convinced me. I’m starting to stack up some seed money for a rental property.
One more thing: here in Switzerland, capital gains on stocks aren't taxed, but rental income is treated just like regular salary. Is it the same way over in the United Kingdom?
Also, what criteria were you using to pick your properties (besides location, obviously)? Any specific deal-breakers or red flags to watch out for? I'm debating whether it's smarter to aim for the luxury market or stick to the lower end.
Head over to "The World Around Me" and look up the threads started by REVENGER4N. You'll find plenty of examples of vegetarian "terrorists" 😉 along with a mountain of other anti-carnivore arguments and various links on vegetarianism. Just a heads-up: those discussions aren't for the faint of heart 😉
I’d go with The New York Times. Dealing with lawyers and lawsuits would just be my Plan B running in the background. You can't bring your mother back, but you can stop this from happening to anyone else. At least then your suffering wouldn't be for nothing.
frozenangler9, if it helps, my dear grandmother went through the exact same thing. It was resolved quickly thanks to TEP, and she stayed disciplined with her breathing exercises—using a straw and all that. She’s bright and alert today. There's a massive risk at that age if the patient stays bedridden too long. As stormywolf2 already noted, "Early mobilization will be absolutely critical..." because staying in bed kills any motivation to try, creating a vicious cycle. I suspect you'll have to step in as the amateur psychologist here, constantly pushing and encouraging them until things actually start looking up.
stormylynx14 said:... assuming that sick man even had a chance at survival.
That’s precisely the dilemma. Usually, there is a chance for the patient to survive, but it's slim. How slim does it have to be before we decide further treatment is futile? If you take a group of patients with a specific status—defined by certain physiological parameters—you can calculate their probability of survival. But what if only three out of a thousand survive? Do we keep treating them or pull the plug? And who gets to make that call?
Let's look back at the case of Ronald Reagan, which everyone knows. He was critically ill, lost consciousness, and spent days on life support. Any doctor would have seen there was no hope, but because of his prominence—and perhaps a desperate wish for a miracle—they kept him alive.
If we apply that logic to everyone, then according to stormylynx14's suggestion, every loved one will be kept on life support until brain death is officially declared (just like it was with Ronald Reagan). First of all, it makes no sense. Second—call it brutal if you want, but it’s a fact—healthcare resources are finite. Currently, doctors decide when to stop treatment. There's no point in burying our heads in the sand; that's just how it works. The question is whether an algorithm could handle this more effectively and objectively, and if such a method would be more acceptable since no single individual would bear the direct responsibility for the decision to end life support.
Daniel Chavez14 said:stormylynx14, what if they don't specify UVA and UVB separately, just UV? Are those glasses sketchy?
If that's the case, they're likely referring to UVA rays.
Warby Parker states their certified glasses carry the UV 400 or CE mark. They suggest a light absorption rate between 68% and 75%.
Some brands actually guarantee decent protection—take Ray-Ban for full frames, or Eagle Eye if you're just looking at lenses. Even with prescription glasses, the latter absorbs 99% of UVA and UVB.
More zemlja vino said:I don't believe a word of what's written above... Honestly, where is that bottle of wine I keep specifically for when people disappoint me?
Fine. If you don't believe it, then read it again.
We aren't advocating for euthanasia or anything like that here. The issue concerns critically ill patients where survival is highly uncertain despite intensive care. At what point does further treatment simply lose its purpose? The alternative is the extreme: keeping everyone on dialysis, ventilators, and blood filtration until brain death finally occurs. Remember Reagan? That’s the mindset I’m talking about. Now tell me we should treat every terminal patient that way. We'd need enough ICU beds just to accommodate the waste. And all of this while dealing with the massive budget deficits at Medicare.
According to certain statistics, a person causes a disproportionate share of healthcare costs during the final weeks of their life. Naturally, they require significantly more medical services than usual. It makes sense; when a life is on the line, massive amounts of effort are poured into saving it or extending it.
A topic for those who find it acceptable to withdraw treatment in hopeless cases—for instance, patients in an ICU kept alive solely by a cluster of machines. The question is: at what point should care be discontinued? When are the chances of recovery too slim to justify exhausting such vast resources? Would you leave that decision to a doctor, a medical board, or perhaps a computer program that uses physiological parameters and survival probability statistics to determine the end of treatment? An algorithm offers objectivity, ensuring no individual has to shoulder the direct weight of the decision. On the other hand, leaving such a choice to a machine feels inhuman.
I recommend checking out this soundtrack; there are actually some gems on here. It hits hard when Jack Black yells, "Let's get it on!" or during that other part, "Can somebody see what this life has done to me." Most of the tracks were recorded using sixties-style techniques, keeping the vocals on one channel and the instruments on the other.
Jason Wells4 said:As they say, what can someone actually do? They'd need my login credentials, and even then, three wrong guesses and the whole account gets suspended automatically. Honestly, the dumbest thing a thief could do is try to transfer cash to their own account. If you're looking for a more sophisticated scheme, you’d figure out how much someone is worth and then go after their spouse or sister to set up some extortion. Furthermore, you can cap your daily transaction limits—usually at a few thousand dollars or whatever you decide—which adds another layer of security. 🙂
Wells4, I hope you aren't sitting on a massive pile of cash in that USA account of yours. Someone could crack that account and reroute your funds to an address linked to forged documents. And getting those login details is easy enough with a keylogger virus monitoring every keystroke you make.
I worked stocking shelves at a local grocery store, selling produce. Later, I moved up to the register. It started back in high school and kept going through college, where I pulled shifts as a teaching assistant. Most of my money went toward traveling with my partner or picking up high-end components for my setup—I was already an audiophile by then.
Anderlon said:I'm plugging a smartcard reader into my laptop's USB port. The smartcard acts as my ID. Before this, I used a token—basically a little device similar to a calculator that spits out encrypted numbers...
Strange. My bank (JPMorgan Chase, Switzerland) actually went the other way. They started with smart cards, then ditched them after two years in favor of tokens. Is the token actually more secure?
Incorrect. General anesthesia can be achieved via intravenous administration through an increasing dosage. There are several substances used for this purpose, such as Ketamine-based drugs, Fentanyl (which metabolizes quickly), and others. Additionally, sedation is possible using various hypnotics like Midazolam, which can be dosed to eliminate fear and anxiety while leaving the patient somewhat lucid. I would personally recommend the latter.
If that isn't available where you are going, there is still the option of delivering gas via a laryngeal mask (I assume the approach for a sinus endoscopy is nasal, right?) or even a tracheal tube, though the latter is total overkill for such a minor procedure.
Side effects of IV anesthesia or sedation can include drowsiness or lack of concentration. It is recommended that you do not drive or make any major decisions for 24 hours following the procedure.
Teah, I am not sure how things work in America, but here in the US, you have to check in before the procedure to express your preferences. In these types of procedures, an anesthesiologist is present anyway, so it shouldn't be an issue.
Generally speaking, modern anesthesia is very safe; complications are extremely rare. The risk is roughly equivalent to crossing the street on foot.😉