I’m not really upset with you, maybe I shouldn’t come out with such a negative demeanor and make you defensive. On the other hand, you started it, with your first dismissive comment about the whole article. I just wanted to post about public health in the third world and something good going on, and you seem like you’re really hell-bent on proving that there must be someone who’s really wrong here, other than you.

I am done. If it was all a misunderstanding then sure. Like I say, I just mostly don’t care at this point.

95% of cervical cancer is caused by HPV.

Source: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/cervical-cancer

I thought the WHO said 99%, since numbers are different depending on which you ask, but this says 95%. Screening and treatment, which are also included in the article you’re claiming to have read, will very effectively prevent harm from the other 5%. Thus eliminating it as a public health problem. It’s a great thing, and here you are in the comments INSISTING that other people need to absorb your misunderstandings of the situation and I guess view it NOT as a good thing, or something.

Youre defending people who are saying the article says 94% of these can be avoided, when the article says 94% of cancers occur in those countries.

I don’t even know why I’m in this conversation. These are not mutually incompatible statements. 94% of the problem exists in the third world, and 95% of cervical cancer is caused by HPV. I don’t know why you are saying that the first statement somehow DISproves the second. They’re both true. Multiple statements can be true, even if they involve similar percentages.

That is, in fact, such a weird type of misunderstanding for you to be so confident about that I feel comfortable just ending the conversation here. Think, read the sources, learn. Or don’t. I don’t care.

You broke the code lol.

95% is the low estimate, the WHO says it’s 99%.

Edit: I am wrong, the WHO also says 95%. I don’t know why I thought they said 99%. Regardless, almost everyone says 95% or more.

He read it as “elimination of cancer” first, read only the headline and then got really upset without reading the article because cancer is not just one thing (true!), and has now noticed, and for some reason edited it to retcon into getting equally mad claiming “a cancer is not just one thing,” which is total nonsense, but superior I guess to just admitting he made a mistake.

HPV causes 99% 95% of cases of cervical cancer. The article is mostly talking about outreach to the third world sharing things like HPV vaccines and saving hundreds of thousands of lives. The guy’s just yelling and being wrong. And, of course, some other lemmy.world yelling idiots are upvoting him, because they love yelling and being wrong. Just ignore him.

After this and a group of people from lemmy.world who got really mad earlier today about a “paywalled” article I posted that didn’t, in fact, have a paywall, I think I may defederate my systems from lemmy.world. It’s honestly just too dumb an environment to produce useful comments. PugJesus and !news@lemmy.world and the cat pictures are the only good things on it at this point, I think.

Edit: It was more than one person who got mad about the “paywall,” I think it was at least 8 people.

Edit: I don’t know where I got 99%, the WHO says 95%.

Yeah, let’s get rid of the people who do the work, and not say anything about changing the decision process that led to no one wanting to buy the airplanes anymore.

That oughta do it. If we fire enough people, we can sell 1 airplane per year and stay profitable. It literally can’t fail.

I wonder how many of the toxic “left” accounts in the study were ones who also happened to show a suspicious pattern of echoing Russian-friendly or not-voting-for-Democrats-friendly talking points.

Certainly natural home-grown political toxicity is, as it’s always been, a feature of anyone on the internet who’s talking about politics, right or left. But I’ve absolutely noticed on Lemmy that the same users who are incredibly toxic about their approach to anyone who disagrees with them, also tend to sometimes have other anomalous funny ideas.

The recount they’re complaining about is required by state law:

https://www.wgal.com/article/pennsylvania-us-senate-race-casey-vs-mccormick-recount-update/62936018

Yeah, I did figure that out after the whole conversation.

Having to input your email address, or just lie and click “I’m already a subscriber” which shows the article, or reload the page apparently, is not a paywall. Also, it would have been easier for these people to just do any one of those three things than to come into the comments with their mouths open, making a demanding noise like a little baby bird.

I think we should normalize showing respect to the sites that want to try to get paid for spending the money to put their good articles together, and de-normalize treating that behavior as some kind of affront against the reader and immediately start whining about it. (As if that wasn’t already clear from my rude messages about it so far.)

They’re not showing the belly for you to rub it. They’re showing the belly because they’re happy and comfortable, and don’t feel a need to protect their vulnerable spots. If you’re molesting their belly out of nowhere, they’re going to feel betrayed and mess you up.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China's_final_warning

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=66Kwh5OVNvM

I don’t think you are lying, but I do think that you are mistaken. I think there’s probably a significant overlap between:

• The population that has a knee-jerk “paywalls are bad” reaction, not really knowing or caring that it takes money to put together quality journalism, and that the people reading that journalism have some responsibility to make sure it can continue, if they want to be able to read it
• The population that might see a “please donate” popup and react with a knee-jerk “ARHGHGHAFSASDHF PAYWALL OH NOES” reaction and close out and start whining in the comments, not bothering to find the “close” button or read closely enough to notice that it’s not a paywall.

You and the other person have shown yourselves to be part of population #1, so I’m assuming that you’re also part of population #2. This site does not have a paywall. Maybe I’m wrong and they just suddenly decided to reverse their whole funding model and install one, in a haphazard fashion that disappears if someone goes back and loads the page again, but I lean towards my explanation.

The commencement of whining about how the victim defending themselves is horribly unfair, unreasonable, and must be stopped at all costs, is always a feature of bullying. I don’t know why, but it is.

What did this paywall say? I simply don’t believe you. Was it this message?

About This Story

Perhaps you noticed: This story, like all the news we publish, is free to read. That’s because Inside Climate News is a 501c3 nonprofit organization. We do not charge a subscription fee, lock our news behind a paywall, or clutter our website with ads. We make our news on climate and the environment freely available to you and anyone who wants it.

Donations from readers like you fund every aspect of what we do. If you don’t already, will you support our ongoing work, our reporting on the biggest crisis facing our planet, and help us reach even more readers in more places?

Please take a moment to make a tax-deductible donation. Every one of them makes a difference.

I just gave them $25, just to irritate the two of you.

What? They pop up a box asking for donations, but there’s no paywall.

This isn’t quite the question you asked, but my best advice based on being in survival mode some time ago is: Get a Costco membership or borrow someone’s card, and start to get small batches of $50-100 worth of groceries from there at a time. Plan it ahead for what you’ll need for the couple of weeks coming up. Big sacks of rice or flour, cases of tinned bean or veggies, milk and eggs or cheese, peanut butter, cheese and oranges once you’ve got a reserve of the staples. Potatoes, olive oil, bread, Annie’s mac and cheese.

Even if you’re only buying 3-5 things with each trip, your money will go pretty far and it’s wonderful to have some basic stuff in the cupboard all month and then be spending your money on filling in new stuff you want, instead of just on survival.

I have no potato recipes for the now, this is just some stuff for later that worked for me.

“Wombat Kombat” was right there, though.

You’re right, I should have said “requires a hearing.”

It looks like there are less legal protections in place than I thought, and the “justice system” that’s holding the trial is provided by the DOJ. So you do get a hearing, but Trump has even more ability to make it into an unapologetic horror than I thought he did. That’s not good.

Adjudicating whether or not someone is guilty of a crime, or in the US illegally, requires a trial. Doing that for millions of people all of a sudden within a system that’s already backed up by more than a year is completely impossible.

In other words, they are absolutely talking about deporting innocent people of the wrong ethnicity without any attempt at due process, and anyone who thinks different is living in a dream world. And then, once they’re done with that batch, they plan to move on to other classes of undesirables.