I had two premature babies in the NICU (twins with last minute maternal complications, everyone is fine but things were early), and they benefited so much from donor milk.

Newborns in general and preemies in particular have basically no immune system. NICU preemies are also susceptible to a very serious intestinal condition that can cause parts of their intestines to die.

Breast milk is filled with antibodies and various immune response related proteins that help bootstrap their immune system and might essentially prevent the intestinal issue entirely.

Once you’re developmentally advanced enough there’s no real long term difference between formula and breast milk, but before then the immune compounds we can’t make synthetically are basically medicine.

It’s a little odd because breast milk seems more intimate than something like blood, but it’s arguably more impactful.

Yup, it’s not ideal.
For slight contextualization on why it’s not the worst: for the most part, the lead pipes have a layer of scale (material from water reacting with the pipe) that keeps lead out of the water.
We stopped installing new lead pipes quite a while ago, and the program to fully phase them out was started in the 90s. This was relatively routine for developed countries, as lead pipes were extremely common across the world.

After Flint, it became apparent that this wasn’t the “slow fix” problem everyone thought after we saw how easily it could go to full “problem”. So everyone accelerated the timeline.

So while it’s definitely a problem, it’s not an entirely novel or extremely critical problem.

If people thought we lived in a society, than we wouldn’t have used lead pipes in the 1950 or before?
In an era where we didn’t know there was as much risk as we found out over the following decades?
What the fuck are you even talking about? Do you know when these pipes were even installed?

Do you think that people should be held responsible for the votes of their great grandparents? Or, more specifically, that their children should get brain damage because of how their great great grandparents voted?

What do you think we gain by letting poor communities be potentially poisoned? That hurts all of us.
Hell, Flint (the prototypical example) didn’t even vote for the people who screwed them over. The state government imposed them on the city against their will.
I suppose you think they deserve lead poisoning because they didn’t have the good graces to have a flourishing economy after the biggest employer in the city left?

Because we live in a society.

I don’t know how to convey that you should do things that keep people, particularly children, healthy even if they don’t live in the same municipal tax jurisdiction.

The program has been going on for decades. The Feds put money in a big account the EPA manages that gives grants and loans to areas that need it to get the process completed faster.
As loans get repaid over the years, the money is leant out again. Most areas have enough income to afford the project, but not enough cash on hand to afford to pay all at once.

This is the first batch of additional money being added to the fund along with a mandate that the problem be resolved in a fixed timeframe.

Currently the fund has used about $20billion to provide $40billion in upgrades over nearly 30 years.

https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/biden-harris-administration-issues-final-rule-requiring-replacement-lead-pipes-within

Funding: The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law provides $50 billion to support upgrades to the nation’s drinking water and wastewater infrastructure. This includes $15 billion over five years dedicated to lead service line replacement and $11.7 billion of general Drinking Water State Revolving Funds that can also be used for lead service line replacement. There are a number of additional pathways for systems to receive financial support for lead service line replacement. These include billions available as low- to no-cost financing through annual funding provided through the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF) program and low-cost financing from the Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (WIFIA) program. Funding may also be available from other federal agencies, state, and local governments. These efforts also advance the Biden-Harris Administration’s Justice40 Initiative, which sets the goal that 40% of the overall benefits of certain Federal investments flow to disadvantaged communities that are marginalized by underinvestment and overburdened by pollution.

I re-traced my steps, and the source was both dogshit, and didn’t site primary sources. I edited the original comment to convey non-compliance before hospitalization was required.

Ultimately “was sick, didn’t listen when doctors said to stop drinking” conveys the same doubts that “tried to stop but failed” does about suitability for a donor liver.

In isolation it’s not great, but in conjunction with your own advocate talking about you not following a doctor’s orders? It doesn’t bolster confidence that the individual would follow doctors orders in the future.

It means she hasn’t been able to quit drinking!

Yes, that’s exactly the point. It’s quite unlikely her medical troubles started when she was hospitalized.
A history of not following medical advice casts doubt about a future of following medical advice.

Yes, addiction is a disease that the individual may lack the ability to control. That doesn’t change that it’s a risk factor for non-compliance that’s absent in others who need the transplant.

Not made up, I just read a couple other articles that mentioned it.
It’s also part of the whole “the only people who can talk freely are the people with an interest in the doctors being wrong”.

People aren’t turned away because they didn’t exercise or because they work too much or they don’t get enough sleep or they didn’t follow doctor’s orders. So, in Nathan and Amanda’s case, you’re seeing someone being told, ‘You didn’t follow doctor’s orders, so we’re not going to help you. We’re going to let you die’

As a quote from the other interested party, as well as the “in documents shared with CTV News, notes show […] their decision was based on ‘minimal abstinence outside of hospital.’” is pretty much spelling it out.

It actually takes surprisingly little if it’s done consistently and without giving your body time to rest.

A standard drink has roughly 14g of ethanol in it. People with notable liver damage tend to have a history of a decade or more drinking 30-50 grams a day, or two to three drinks.
People who drink more than 80g a day for a decade are almost guaranteed to have liver problems (~5-6 drinks).

Obviously drinking a half gallon a day is worse, but consistent long term drinking is also not great.

It is essentially a poison that’s only around because it’s easy to make and traditional at this point.

Yeah, it’s definitely faster, but I’m not sure it’s going to make too much of a difference for a Minecraft server.

With setting it up being a bit annoying by hand, I’d still rank the router option higher even if it’s a worse VPN. Otherwise you risk ending up in that yak shaving situation where you’re fighting with routing tables and DNS when you wanted a Minecraft server.

Oh for sure. What I meant was “check router for a built in VPN and use it if it has one, otherwise use wireguard because it’s the easiest”.

The specific VPN doesn’t really matter so much. The built-in one would be the easiest, so checking for a solution that took a few clicks is worth it. :)

Well, stopped drinking when she got the diagnosis, not before, didn’t comply with medical advice to stop drinking before hospitalization, and as they said in the article there are a lot of criteria for a living donation, and it’s only an option if you otherwise qualify for a donation because of the possibility of rejection requiring an urgent transplant.

A different article said they were trying to raise funds to get the transplant done at an unspecified European hospital, so “yes”. I think it’s telling that they didn’t go to the US, a north American country, or specify the country.
It’s worth remembering that the only people who can talk freely are the people who were decided against and are talking about suing.

No one wanted her to die, but with organ transplants it’s a case where you’re more or less picking who will die. Phrasing it as being punished for bad behavior is unfair to the people who need to decide which people are likely enough to benefit, which isn’t easy.

I would use something like wireguard, or another VPN service you can host yourself if your router supports it natively.

From the looks of it Minecraft servers seem to have dogshit authentication, so using some form of private network setup is going to be your best move.

You asked why Europe would want to avoid pushing Russia too far.
You can either come up with a complicated answer involving Russia having a vast reserve of undemonstrated military might and thinking that anyone found the “denazification” excuse plausible, or you can remember that they have nukes and even with a military that poses no plausible threat or defense to NATO being a nuclear power is a great deterrent.

Why, lacking evidence to the contrary, you would pick the more complicated explanation is a mystery.

Europe and the west are hesitant to provoke Russia for a reason. Idk why that’s such an unpopular opinion here.

Yeah, nuclear weapons and domestic political concerns around openly escalating a war as opposed to supplying a defensive war. No one is particularly hesitant to admit that Russia has nukes and or that that influences how NATO handles the situation.

People think that looking at the past decades of what’s happened to Russia, and the recent failures they’ve had and concluding that they’re just “holding back” is assinine.

Attributing loosing or making preposterous strategic mistakes to some sort of 5D chess is a weird choice to make.

I don’t know why so many of you people have such a hard time accepting that the popular conception of Russia as an Eastern counterpart to the US was inaccurate. Turns out that if you consistently invest less in your military equipment and personnel, you have a less capable military. It’s been 40 years since their expenditures have been comparable, and quite frankly it shows.

Using your old equipment for an invasion would actually be a pretty novel strategy. Ukraine consistently used the best equipment available to them. That that was leftover NATO hardware doesn’t mean Ukraine was choosing to hold the good stuff in reserve.

If they’re trying to use a “let the reservists die and then send in the competent soldiers” strategy, it doesn’t seem to be going very well. They’re somehow not holding the territory they took very well, and churning through a lot of what was presumably reserve hardware.

Failing to execute a gulf war 1, and so deciding to chill in a Vietnam situation for … Some reason … for an indeterminate period of time is just not a strategy that any sane strategist would pick.

If Russia has the ability to just handwave their way to victory if things got too rough, they’ve done a pretty terrible job of demonstrating it.
I honestly can’t comprehend what you might have seen of this whole affair that would make you think they had that ability, beyond clinging to the notion that a former superpower must still be a superpower.
They just don’t have the economy or the equipment to be able to afford to burn through endless waves of soldiers like you seem to think they’re intentionally doing.
They didn’t even get air superiority, which is just embarrassing.

Eh, it’s been old equipment and concripts for a bit now, but that’s not what the sent at first.

Trying to take a country using your C team and old hardware and then scaling up if things go badly is a radically bad strategy. It’s a great way to lose your C team, and then send more competent soldiers to fight against a prepared and well defensed enemy.

That might be what Russia did, but if so it’s a show of incompetence about in line with everything else we’ve seen and not some “better slow down” signal.

An all out war is unlikely, since if NATO involvement was going to kick that off it would have done so by now.
The next point of escalation that could start something bigger would be stuff like NATO openly sending troops or actively providing fire support.

US hesitation to allow our hardware to be used for this type of attack is much more to do with the political issues surrounding the war being framed as a proxy war instead of defensive support.
The electorates support for “saving the day” and “superior US hardware helping keep a country free” is high. Support for a protracted and complex proxy war without clear right and wrong sides is exhausting and hits too many Iraq/Afghanistan buttons for people to care.

Asking for and publicly being denied permission to bomb targets adjacent to the capitol does just as well at communicating “we can bomb your capitol” as actually doing it.

There seems to have been some policy miscommunication between political and military parties of both nations.
The US has maintained that the restrictions have been to not allow offensive use, or specific long range missiles for targeting well inside Russian territory.
Ukraine understood this to mean using them to fend off an attack, and only targets within a specific distance from the border.
In the past few months it seems that much of this has been clarified, and Ukraine is now using US munitions for a proper US “preemptive defensive action inside enemy territory”, because a Russian base in Russia is full of Russian soldiers who will be ordered to attack, therefore an attack is defensive.

If it was an actual miscommunication or a pivot is unclear, but the US language seems to have not changed, and a policy that acknowledges that almost anything Ukraine does in this war is inherently defensive is much more reasonable.

You do know that the first amendment doesn’t protect incitement, right? It’s just about the only thing that it doesn’t cover, along with defamation.

He’s literally specifically calling out something our laws also prohibit.

https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-resources/about-educational-outreach/activity-resources/what-does

Freedom of speech does not include the right: To incite imminent lawless action. Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969).