Ryan

Almost nobody knows the entire fear of cholesterol began with a rabbit. >be a Russian pathologist, 1913 >wonder what furs up human arteries >test it on rabbits, naturally >feed them mountains of purified cholesterol dissolved in oil >the rabbits, who have never met the stuff in their lives, fur up >publish immediately >announce to the world that dietary cholesterol causes heart disease >decline to mention that a rabbit is a herbivore >or that grass contains no cholesterol >or that the animal has no machinery for handling it >you have poisoned a vegetarian and billed it as a breakthrough A herbivore, fed an animal product it was never built to eat, in doses nothing in nature could meet. That is the foundation stone of the cholesterol scare. Humans are not rabbits. We have eaten cholesterol since there were humans. The whole edifice rests on one bewildered bunny.

The narrative that "he was just filming and it pissed off the cops" is a false one. The narrative that he was only trying to protect those two women, is a false one. They, as a team, and others there, were actively interfering with a legitimate operation. That's why the cops shoved them off of the street. That doesn't mean he deserved to die. When grabbed, he resisted arrest. That doesn't mean he deserved to die. He was armed, and chose to insert himself in an active operation, and resist arrest. That doesn't mean he deserved to die. The agent who yelled "GUN" and took the gun, had the gun go off before he could yell "CLEAR", and other agents followed their training (or lack thereof) and shot him. All that the other officers knew was that there was a called out gun sighting, and a gun shot, and a guy resisting arrest. You see an agent after the shooting stopped, run over to the body and ask "where's the f*%king gun!?!". He believed he was shooting an armed man, resisting arrest...because that's exactly what he was doing. He didn't deserve to die, but his own actions, poor decisions, and actual criminal activity were every bit a factor in his death, as the bumbling agents. Yes, I think the shooting was unnecessary. I think there were a million other ways that scenario could have been handled by the agents. I don't believe he deserved to die. I don't believe the agents were threatened whatsoever. Recklessness by all involved ended up with a man losing his life. 23% of all ICE activity has been happening in Texas. We don't see these things happening there. 2% of ICE operations happening in Minnesota and we have 3 shootings of American Citizens. What's the difference? Blue States have organized resistance campaigns designed to insert American citizens into ICE operations to interfere... intentionally... purposely...directly. Interfering with law enforcement operations is not only illegal, but it's dumb. This is how people get killed. Resisting arrest is not only illegal, but it's dumb. This is how people get killed. In the 2nd Amendment community, there is a wise saying that goes "I would rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6" referring to the 12 members on a jury as opposed to 6 pall bearers carrying your casket. It's used to make the wise argument that it is smart to carry in gun free zones. Because they are soft targets often sought out by active shooters and other violent criminals. The same principle applies, but is not used, when people interact with law enforcement. Would you rather be right, or be dead? Make good decisions when dealing with law enforcement, and survive. Then take the fight up in court. Meanwhile, use every platform available to highlight the injustice done to you. Name departments, cities, towns, supervisors, and specific officers by name. Expose them. But, interfering with an operation and resisting arrest, while carrying a gun, is a recipe that will end like we saw. Was it legal for him to be armed there? Yes. Should he carry everywhere? Yes. Is it another level of stupid to interfere with operations and then resist arrest...while armed? My goodness...yes. When we carry, we take on additional responsibilities. He neglected his. It's absolutely possible to stand with the policing up of illegal aliens, while at the same time calling law enforcement reckless. It's absolutely possible to call law enforcement reckless and point out the recklessness of fellow citizens at the same time. It's absolutely possible to recognize nuance, details, a quickly changing, hyper dynamic situation and the humanity of all involved. He didn't have to die. Liberty only exists when it's orderly. None of this was orderly. Not by anyone involved. When liberty is taken, lives are lost. He didn't have to die.

Humble brag… 11 years ago I had a window replaced and I told the contractor hey let be grab that hardware in case I need it and I threw it into the junk drawer My wife mocked me Today…11 years later, a contractor working in a different room said man I wish we could get that exact hardware to replace a busted piece… “Hang on a sec”. Took me 11 years but checkmate! I feel so vindicated

As a proud American company, we're thrilled to continue to make significant investments in the US. Today, we’re announcing a $500 billion commitment to support American innovation, advanced manufacturing, and high tech job creation. apple.com/newsroom/2025/02/a…

So you want the government to run your healthcare? I waited on hold on @TRICARE for 49 minutes so I could be transferred to payments where I waited on hold for 2 hours and 51 minutes for the annual update of my payment information.

I’ve said it countless times in the last 2 years & will say it again: the H-1B system is badly broken & should be replaced with one that focuses on selecting the very best of the best (not a lottery), pro-competitive (no indentured service to one company), and de-bureaucratized.

💯

No shortage of shitty takes on the 2024 election or on this assassination. The public execution of an innocent man and father of two is indefensible, not “inevitable.” Condoning and cheering this on says more about YOU than the situation of health insurance.

Here's what Delaware Chancellor McCormick had to say about @Tesla's request to “revise” the post-trial opinion based on Tesla shareholder's reapproving Elon's compensation package: "The large and talented group of defense firms got creative with the ratification argument, but their unprecedented theories go against multiple strains of settled law. There are at least four fatal flaws. First, the defendants have no procedural ground for flipping the outcome of an adverse post- trial decision based on evidence they created after trial. Second, common-law ratification is an affirmative defense that must be timely raised, which means that, at a minimum, it cannot be raised for the first time after the post-trial opinion. Third, what the defendants call “common law ratification” has no basis in the common law— a stockholder vote standing alone cannot ratify a conflicted-controller transaction. Fourth, even if a stockholder vote could have a ratifying effect, it could not do so here due to multiple, material misstatements in the proxy statement. Each of these defects standing alone defeats the motion to revise." On the attorney's fees she said: "The fee petition is granted in part. The plaintiff’s attorneys asked for $5.6 billion in freely tradeable Tesla shares. In a case about excessive compensation, that was a bold ask. To be sure, their methodology for calculating this figure is sound. Delaware courts award fees based on a percentage of the value of the benefit achieved, scaled to reflect the stage of the case, and adjusted for other factors. Applying this approach to rescission of a $55.8 billion compensation award results in an eye- popping figure. Yet, as the Delaware Supreme Court cautioned in In re Dell Technologies Inc. Class V Stockholders Litigation, a fee award “can be so large that typical yardsticks, like stage of the case percentages, must yield to the greater policy concern of preventing windfalls to counsel.”1 The fee award here must yield in this way, because $5.6 billion is a windfall no matter the methodology used to justify it. To reach a reasonable number, this decision adopts the defendants’ approach and uses the $2.3 billion grant date fair value to value the benefit achieved. Applying a conservative 15% to that figure results in a fee award of $345 million—an appropriate sum to reward a total victory. The defendants may elect to pay the fee award in cash or freely tradable shares." Full ruling: courts.delaware.gov/Opinions…

What are your election predictions for a surprise state that one side or the other will win? Mine is ... Virginia will go for Trump.