Kevin Garcia12 said:Regarding local or regional anesthesia and procedures in general—yeah, you can pretty much do most standard operations under those types. I guess you just have to keep in mind they carry their own set of risks and complications. To be more specific, I’d need to know exactly what we’re dealing with, but aside from massive, complex surgeries involving the chest, major blood vessels, the heart, or deep abdominal work, there’s almost always a way to handle things while the patient stays awake...
It's an operation for a benign tumor in the middle ear area. "The CT scan shows a soft tissue mass filling the right middle ear's hypotympanum, starting from the cochlear promontory and extending toward the mesotympanum, near the tensor tympani muscle. Based on its location, it looks like a glomus tympanicum. We're also considering a cholesteatoma, though there doesn't seem to be any bone destruction."
crimsonpuma23 said:It’s gone now, obviously because those odds didn't suit them. Today, maybe you'd see a 1.20 or 1.30 coefficient. But I guess options like Team USA gets the first corner(1.60) or at least 5 corners in the first half(1.70) would be solid bets for this game. The Americans will probably charge from the whistle, and Iceland will just sit back in a panic. 🤷
I'd personally take that 5 corner option. I'm expecting some sort of early run from our guys that should cover it, though honestly, I'm staying away from this match entirely today.
Since we're talking corners, maybe this is a decent play (I'm playing it safe here, even with lower odds): Team USA gets more corners, coeff. 1.3 (9-1)
The US is going to be constantly attacking, basically living in their half of the field. It's almost impossible for Iceland to walk away with more corners in a setup like that...
Does any sportsbook have the ball possession market open for the USA vs. Iceland game today? I saw it listed on DraftKings during the first match, but now I can't find it anywhere.
crimsonpuma23 said:The Powerball is offering some decent 1.50 odds on a higher ball possession percentage for the US. I think I might play, but what do you guys think? I usually stay away from these kinds of promos because they feel like a total gimmick, but maybe I just can't help myself. 😁
By what logic would Iceland end up with more ball possession than us? 😕
I played this last time since it looked like a killer deal right off the bat. I’d probably do it again, but I'm not sure if they actually list the ball possession stats anywhere in the offer? Looking at the Powerball site now, and it's still not there.
I’m writing this because I saw a news story about a surgery performed a few days ago in that new operating room over at Mount Sinai. It was pretty specific—the patient stayed awake through the whole thing.
The main things I'm wondering are: given how far medical tech has come, can any surgery actually be done without general anesthesia? And if so, is that something only possible in high-end facilities (like that new unit at Mount Sinai), or could any hospital pull it off?
I actually have a procedure coming up myself. I mentioned to my anesthesiologist that I'd really rather skip the general anesthesia—maybe it's just irrational caution on my part, I guess—but she basically told me that while "any surgery can technically be done under local anesthesia," doctors prefer general because it's just easier and more comfortable for everyone involved.
Then I asked the surgeon if local anesthesia was an option, and he just looked at me like, "Don't be ridiculous."
So, who's actually right here?
I get that general anesthesia is more pleasant—mostly for the patient, but also for the surgical team—but why shouldn't a patient have the final say on how they're treated, assuming it's medically feasible?
I don't really buy the arguments you're making, but I'm not going to drag this out any further. You just copy-pasted a dead thread from over here, so if anyone actually cares, they can go check it out and decide for themselves if what you're saying is even remotely true.
About a year ago, I asked on the forum how one goes about reporting bullying by a moderator, but I didn't actually follow through—not because I lacked evidence, I guess, just because I couldn't be bothered with the hassle. Now, after a long time, I went back to that same subforum (the legal section, moderated by crimsonsailor7) and my post was just flat-out deleted. I copied and pasted what I wrote over to the general discussion board, so take a look. Did I actually break any rules, other than questioning a moderator's authority? And I did it pretty respectfully, I think.
The way I see it, this moderator is hurting the quality of the forum, and honestly, it's the users who pay the price.
Since I figured this might happen, I immediately saved a local copy of the webpage with my post. Someone might try to claim I never even wrote it, but I can always email the admins an HTML file that clearly shows my post was live.
Please send me the email address where I can send that HTML file.
I'm totally with rowdyjackal56 on this one; my own experience backs it up. One of the moderators constantly picks on me just because she can't win an actual argument. She’s been unprofessional countless times, but I haven't bothered doing anything about it because, much like rowdyjackal56, I’ve decided my time is way too valuable to waste here. This mod has given me warnings and moved my posts to different subforums, and today, she just nuked my post without a single word of explanation. I'll paste it here (first quoting the moderator, then my response), so you guys can judge for yourselves if I actually broke any rules. :
crimsonsailor7 says: Check out this post Of course, that's unreliable. There is evidence that a violation was committed by someone's car, so someone has to be held accountable for it. I get that there are situations where multiple people use the same vehicle and you can't say for sure who was driving at a specific time on a specific day, but that's a risk owners just have to accept.
It isn't a risk "owners have to accept"; if anything, it's a risk the prosecutor should be prepared for. A prosecutor needs to be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the person being charged—whether it's a misdemeanor or a felony—actually committed the offense. If they can't, the person has to be cleared. Sure, proving who committed a traffic violation is tough, but that isn't an excuse to throw fundamental legal principles out the window. The solution isn't for courts to act illegally (which happens a lot; misdemeanor cases are often handled sloppily, leading to rulings against the accused without solid proof), but rather for the enforcement system—backed by the taxpayer's money and massive infrastructure—to better organize itself and utilize 21st-century tech. What crimsailor7 is advocating for actually happens all the time in practice, but I should point out that she's pushing for an illegal solution based on the principle of expediency—basically, if we can't punish the offender by the book, let's just break the rules to do it. "Don't follow the law like a drunk follows a pier," as some famous local politician used to say, and people who support these kinds of shortcuts think he was right. What I'm trying to say is that there are plenty of judges who actually follow the law, though judicial practice is pretty inconsistent. I know of numerous cases (some I've personally dealt with, others I've just seen) where a person facing a charge was acquitted simply by stating they weren't the driver, and that was enough. There are fewer judges who rule legally (and I mean specifically in misdemeanor cases, not generally speaking) than those who rule illegitimately, but they do exist. Here's a real-world example: a meter maid towed my car, and when I went to get it, the officer asked if I was the driver. I said no. He asked who was driving then. I told him I didn't know and wasn't obligated to tell him—that was the end of it. The ticket went to the car owner (someone else), and when they went to court and said they weren't driving, they were cleared. There are tons of examples like that, even if there are plenty of opposite cases too. If there's no evidence (physical or at least witnesses), then the principle of *in dubio pro reo*—innocent until proven guilty—has to apply. Another thing is that misdemeanor proceedings are treated like child's play compared to criminal ones, which leads to unfair rulings. In a real criminal trial, you aren't just going to see someone convicted out of nowhere.
Who can you actually complain to about a moderator bullying someone?
Is there even an oversight committee—or just one person in charge—who handles this stuff? Or once these moderators get their positions, they just get to vent all their frustrations on people? It doesn't just hurt the individual being targeted; I guess it hurts the whole community too, since the whole point of a forum like this is for ideas and opinions to flow freely without being stifled.
In my experience, some mods on certain threads clearly don't know what they're talking about, so they just lean into that authoritarian mindset to make up for it. 🙂
I’ve been using this site for a long time now, so I was wondering if all the posts are going to stay on the server indefinitely—you know, still showing up in search engine results and everything? If the answer is no, I might just go ahead and back up some of my posts and threads myself. Is there any way to get a single page that lists every thread I've participated in (or at least the topics I started)? Or am I stuck hunting them down one by one through a search engine?
My dermatologist sent me over to plastic surgery because of this tiny hemangioma on my scalp. I guess I'm wondering if getting it surgically cut out is actually the move, or if laser treatment might be a better bet?
Henry Morris3 said:I was wondering... if I’m visiting a restaurant or a cafe and I don't smoke, can the owner actually bar me from sitting on the patio? Like, can they insist that I move to the indoor seating just so they can save all those outdoor tables for the smokers instead...
Thanks for the help...
Maybe they can if you play along, but legally, they can't. Honestly, just print this thread out and show them, or maybe just pretend you didn't hear them. If things get physical, call the cops. Depending on how far they take it, they could face misdemeanor charges or even criminal ones, and they'd likely owe you damages for the hassle.
hollowtrucker77 said:So, what else is on the menu besides the blue-eyed crowd? Look, at the end of the day, the owner has every right to call the shots in their own establishment, even if those calls end up being a total disaster for their bottom line.
🤣
Following your logic, a business owner could decide that murder is perfectly fine on their premises, and you’d just walk away scot-free if you killed someone there. Not how it works. Federal and state laws still apply inside any building in the US. By that reasoning, if an owner decides that assaulting a child is allowed in their shop, then property rights somehow make it okay. Property rights aren't some magic shield against basic human decency or the law.
Is central scheduling mandatory or just optional? I showed up at the dermatology department, booked right then and there, and snagged an appointment immediately. But then, over at anesthesiology, the nurse told me I have to go through the central scheduling system. I guess I'm wondering if the rules are the same for every department, or if it's possible that anesthesiology and dermatology just operate under different systems? Did the nurse at dermatology do me a favor, or was she actually required to Order my appointment through the main office? There are basically three ways this plays out: 1. The nurse at dermatology did me a solid. 2. The nurse at anesthesiology is giving me a hard time. 3. These departments don't follow the same set of rules.
We saw a neurologist. At first, he thought we were looking at a stroke, but after doing a carotid Doppler and a brain CT, he figured out it’s actually a blockage in the carotid artery. It’s cutting off oxygen to the left side of her brain, which is why her right leg and arm are basically useless right now. (I didn't mention earlier that it was the right side of her body because it wasn't obvious—it just looked like general weakness, but it turns out the right side is much weaker.)
As for the CT scan, it doesn't show an active stroke, though there's a chance she had one a long time ago without even knowing it.
I'd love to hear what you guys think about the treatment. The neurologist said her age isn't a reason to skip the carotid surgery, but he isn't sure how much of a risk it would be given her history with a heart attack. What do you think? Should we go through with the surgery? I get where Scott Allen10 is coming from, but I have this feeling that surgery might be the only real way forward. I wish it weren't true, and that we could just expect a major improvement from medication alone. Supposedly, they can even do the procedure under local anesthesia. Here are some threads discussing it:
Regarding the meds, being a layman, I expected a whole pharmacy's worth of pills, but she only got Bayer Aspirin and Lipitor once a day. Do you recommend anything else?
Here are the results:
CAROTID COLOR DOPPLER:
The right CCA is occluded throughout, as is the right ICA; the ECA shows retrograde flow up to the bifurcation. No signal in the right ophthalmic artery. The left ICA has high-grade stenosis at the origin due to a semicircular plaque (80-90% stenosis, PSV: 403 cm/s).
Both vertebral arteries show significant compensatory hemodynamic acceleration.
BRAIN CT: old ischemic lesions in the right frontotemporal and right cerebellar regions.
Dx: Right-sided central hemiparesis. Right common carotid artery occlusion. Left internal carotid artery stenosis (approx. 90%). History of cerebral infarction (old). History of myocardial infarction. Diabetes mellitus.
Plan: Continue current regimen plus Bayer Aspirin and introduce Lipitor in the evening. Consult a vascular surgeon.
We’re looking at a 91-year-old woman dealing with diabetes—she's been on insulin for about two years now—and angina pectoris following a heart attack.
Up until recently, she was doing pretty well, mostly, despite some ups and downs, and she could move around quite easily. But about ten days ago, things started sliding. Her walking got difficult, and it just keeps getting worse. It started with her being slow, but now she can't really move without holding onto something. Sometimes she can't even get up from a chair. Her hands have given out on her a few times too, though they seem to work again eventually.
Her blood sugar and blood pressure seem fine. She doesn't actually feel "sick"—she's got enough energy to chat, think, and read, and her appetite is good. She doesn't get winded when she tries to move, which makes me think it isn't a heart issue, but she just has zero strength left in her limbs.
What do you guys think is going on? Her doctor suggested physical therapy. I don't know, shouldn't she probably get some internal medicine tests done first? If you think that's the move, what kind of tests are we talking about, and where in Cleveland would be the best place to go?
Could this be a neurological thing? And honestly, do you think this is just a motor skills issue, or are these symptoms a sign that her life is actually in danger?
electricdriver93 said:Wrong. There is quite a lot of other things we acquire just by being born, whereas nationality, as far as I am aware, is something we acquire through choice. Isn't that right?
I guess that’s true. You're born with your gender, eye color, intelligence, personality traits—even your wealth or social standing. It kind of breaks those typical capitalist arguments like "the capable should have everything and the incapable should have nothing." Because if you happen to be born a total moron with massive capital, you’ll just end up being a capitalist while the actual geniuses are stuck working for you because they were born into poverty. So, yeah, nationality is really just a matter of identification.
Edward Flores4 is probably right, though, in a way. Most people’s sense of identity is pretty much dictated by whatever environment they grew up in.
Personally, I don't back socialism. Not everyone is equal, I guess.
Socialism doesn't actually claim everyone is equal.
Quinn:
Socialism is just a cover for the less capable. It’s basically a slap in the face to anyone actually working hard, all under the guise of "equality."
Actually, it's the other way around. Capitalism is the cover for the unmotivated. It slaps the faces of high achievers by devaluing their effort through "inequality."
Quinn:
The lazy, the ignorant, the primitives, and the aggressors HAVE to be identified and sidelined. That's the only way a society can be "fair."
Sure. And only socialism can pull that off. Capitalism just protects them. Just look at how many "lazy, ignorant, primitive, and aggressive" types thrive under American capitalism while the smart, hardworking people struggle just to stay afloat.
Quinn:
And that brings us to the issue of patriotism—this idea of "respecting" the lazy, the ignorant, the thugs, and the thieves just because we share a nationality. People should be respected for who they are individually, not based on where they were born.
True enough.
Quinn:
Patriotism and nationalism are just symptoms of a broken society. They show up when things aren't functioning properly.
Edward Flores4: I’m totally with you on that negative take regarding patriotism. At the same time, though, I can't say I agree with how you feel about socialism.
I think you’re capable of logic, but when it comes to socialism, you seem pretty stuck in your own biases. With the whole patriotism thing, your premises were solid, so your conclusion actually made sense. But with socialism? Your starting points were off, so even if your reasoning was sound, the final conclusion ended up being wrong.