Leaderboard

Suggest reading the thread and addressing the issues raised, specifically the issues of how to make reproducible observations, the degree of confirmed predictive success of the theories, and the use of theories such as Freud’s, which seem to have only shaky empirical support.

As hiding the fact that the earth is really flat, it needs a massive conspiracy: astronomers with their pictures making satellites, correct predictions of events like moon- and sun eclipses), GPS, time zones, Foucault pendula, etc. It is impossible to uphold a believe in a flat earth, without also believing in a massive conspiracy. Chemtrails, which I also call a conspiracy theory, would need a much smaller conspiracy.

Roe said the former president's movement was considered "off the record," meaning it wasn't on his public calendar that he'd be at the Trump International Golf Club on Sunday. https://abc11.com/post/Ryan-Wesley-Routh-court-donald-trump-apparent-assassination-attempt/15309084/ It’s possible it wasn’t announced for security reasons. Oh the nine-irony

I see your problem here. "Good reason" is not the same as "moral".

I think it's time to conclude that @Luc Turpin doesn't want to be educated to the point where he can see his folly, he prefers the bliss of ignorance; a valid choice, science can't solve everything and belief is a great salve, wrong forum though...

Yes, I think that's the point: the more the idea conflicts with what everyone else considers obvious, the more it becomes inescapable to allege a conspiracy, in order to account for why everyone else is supposedly wrong. This is true of flat earth, 911, Kennedy's assassination, Princess Diana's death (white Fiat Uno/Duke of Edinburgh etc), moon landings, Covid and 5G antennae............ @Night FM, perhaps it would help if you could give an example of a contrarian belief that people call a conspiracy theory but which does not imply a conspiracy. Flat earth is a poor example, for the reasons outlined.

They are motivated by profit, but what @CharonY says about shelf life, specifically, has the ring of truth. I worked in the lubricants industry, in which we had to quote shelf lives for packaged lubricants: engine and gear oils and so forth. When a new product is developed, you can’t wait for 5 - 10 years or more before putting it on the market, just so you can determine when it may start to go off. Also, so much depends on storage conditions: temperature, moisture exposure etc. So what a manufacturer - any manufacturer, I suspect - does is come up with a safe “use by” date from the data on life they already have. As it will be an estimate, they will have to err on the conservative side for obvious legal reasons. No need to ascribe malign motives: it’s a purely practical matter, faced by any manufacturer.

Of course I can, at least for the US (I believe Health Canada is mostly following FDA guidelines, but am not sure). The requirements are outlined in the code of federal regulations specifically 21 CFR 211.166 outlines the general requirements for stability testing https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfCFR/CFRSearch.cfm?fr=211.166. Additional requirements are outlined in 211.165: There are also other passages of relevance (such the the regulation requiring expiration dates 21 CFR 211.137 and other regulations that I am not familiar with might also apply. The FDA is using these regulations and has built a set of requirements for the industry. A guidance document outlining the specifics (as per the FDA) can be found here: https://www.fda.gov/media/71707/download A significant change from the original formulation is considered if any of the following is observed during the stability study: In addition there are additional criteria, depending on the packaging. Note that they minimum test time is 12 months (or 6 under accelerated schemes). However, the industry standard is usually 2-3 years. The reason is, that (contrary to some assumptions in this thread) having a very short shelf life might make it difficult to sell. The reason why testing is rarely done beyond that is that as indicated in the guidelines, the testing has to be representative of the production. So if the manufacturer change packaging (in a substantial way) or formulation, they have to redo the whole process (meaning in many cases adding years to the process). So keeping it at the 2 years keeps things a bit more flexible. Also keeping the same schedule will result in ideally almost identical degradation profiles, without the need of additional statistical evaluation and one can basically just point at the previous approval. However, this is the reason why you might be able to find the same drug from the same manufacturer with different expiration dates. They may have tested one version for longer than another. I should add that there are relaxed requirements if the mechanism of degradation and its kinetics for certain drugs is very well known. Though in many cases folks tend to prefer to do empirical testing for their formulations to avoid arguing, if possible. It may depend on the specific types of pharmaceuticals. The areas where I am more familiar with tend to have more complex formulation requirements.

No, you are just misunderstanding how it works. Remember, manufacturer have to provide empirical data for the shelf life of their products and it doesn't make sense for them to figure out the max shelf life (which could be decades) before putting them to market. These are not randomly chosen, to bost sales. Though the market average is likely calculated to provide the optimum balance for profits. Remember, if they determine a longer shelf life, they might be wnle to charge more from their customers. Also, you might have missed the fact earlier in this thread that there is acclelerated program to dtermine longer shelf lives, which would run counter to your assumption that manufacturers want to minimize shelf life.

I completely agree, neither of our (CharonY's and mine) opinions are worth much. And since neither of us made the decisions at the executive level at large pharmaceutical corporations, there are no "facts" available here. You're free to discard your meds on their expiration date and rebuy new, I'll keep being invested in the Healthcare sector. Let's see who ends up ahead.

I'd argue it's not extraordinary but rather ordinary.

If we're talking about someone as young as 11, they would need to at least communicate the abuse with people who can address it (e.x. parents or authority figures), and most of the resources would be dedicated to the parents and authority figures who are better able to address the situation than the 11 year old girl herself. You're not thinking this through very well. That's what the law does. A school shooter can't say "I was bullied" as a cop out to being sent to prison. You seem to have contempt for the notion of personal responsibility, and enjoy misusing the term "victim blame". No one is saying that what a bully does is "right" simply because the person doesn't handle it properly.

I've played quite a few video games, and I've tried to come up with an analysis of games themselves which go beyond specific popular genres (e.x. first person shooter games). These are some of the qualities that I've seen that most games have (some of these qualities may be applicable to other types of games, such as board games or sports): *Aesthetic qualities - These refer to features such as the graphics, music, characters, and storyline. What makes these things "good" or "bad" is somewhat subjective. *Control - This refers to how the player performs movements or actions in a game. A 2D platformer game where players only move in 4 directions has more precise controls than a 3D racing sim. *Focus - This refers to what the player has to focus on (generally, their character and their environment). Some games require the player to shift focus more than others (e.x. a real-time strategy game requires more constant focus shifting than a racing game) *Pace - This refers to the pace at which the player has to perform actions in the game. An arcade SHMP game is a much faster-paced game than a turn-based strategy game (where the player has infinite time to plan their move). *Progression - Typically, the game gets more challenging as you progress through it (though some games such as RPG games offset this by having your character get stronger or acquire better gear as the game progresses). *Variables - These refer to things which affect how the game plays out. Some games have more variables to consider (e.x. the character's stats in an RPG game are variables that effect the outcome of a battle, while a game such as a 2D platformer game where the character's stats don't change through the game has fewer variables to consider).

Right, the security system analogy is only one possible solution. People would need solutions tailored to their individual circumstances. This discussion is about finding ways to help teens cope with bullying who aren't currently able to do so. (And cope doesn't simply mean "get over it", it means being able to take action to prevent it and not use it as an excuse to act out in antisocial ways, such as in the case of school shooters).