Confusius comments

https://twitter.com/GlobalAffairs/status/1657219168863756288

Twitter Global Government Affairs

In response to legal process and to ensure Twitter remains available to the people of Turkey, we have taken action to restrict access to some content in Turkey today.

We have informed the account holders of this action in line with our policy. This content will remain available in the rest of the world.

Yeah, it is without any doubt just mere coincidence that Erdogan got Twitter to block people in Turkey from accessing certain content right before the election. Can't have them read any stuff that might sway them not to vote for him.

According to Le Parisien it has been confirmed by the police that he is in fact from Libya and subject of an OQTF (Obligation de quitter la France - an obligation to leave France) issued in 2022.

Until now, he was apparently only known as a petty criminal for theft and France has not been able to send him back due to the instability back in his country of origin.

Algerian male 31 years old Mohamed Amine

As far as I know, information on the perpatrator has not been disclosed, so I'd take any such report with a grain of salt. BFM TV for instance claims that the perpetrator is from Libya. And the source I'm referring to is far newer than this post.

Read the article carefully. It was the French justice system that deemed Sagawa unfit to face trial and deported him to Japan.

No, he was found legally insane in France. So the judge ordered him held in a mental institution indefinitely. He was later deported to Japan and committed to a psychiatric hospital in Tokyo. It was there that some psychologists declared him sane, which meant that they could not legally detain him, since the court documents in France were sealed and not released to Japanese authorities.

Are the readers here blind? Why blame japan justice system? It's France who rule him insane and not put him on trial. And put him in a insane asylum to be cured. And release him later on. Japan cannot sentence him because it's France who later on drop the charges. Clearly none here understand anything about the law.

He was not released in France though. He was released in Japan because they declared him sane and had no access to the French court documents to legally detain him. The documents were sealed because the case in France had already been dropped since he was judged legally insane and not just later on.

When he drove back to the school located in the city of Kishiwada after 5 p.m., staff told him that Seira had never arrived, leading him to search his vehicle where he found her limp and unconscious, according to police.

Well, that sounds like the staff noticed that the kid was missing. But unfortunately no word on whether they tried to contact the father or not.

What I find rather baffling is that the father did not only not realize that the kid was still in the car when he returned home, no, he did not even notice her inside the car when he got into the car to pick her up.

I’m basically computer/internet illiterate, so excuse my ignorant question: Aren’t likes/dislikes generally anonymous on most sites?

From the Twitter website:

When you like a Tweet, the original Tweet author is notified.

The Tweet you liked may also appear in your followers’ Home timeline with a note above it to show that you (or you and anyone else they follow) liked it.

So not only are they not anonymous, but liking could also lead to the tweet appearing on people's timeline.

This is disturbing. I often click "like" just to mark a tweet so I can go back to it later. Pressing a button means nothing.

Twitter actually gives you the option to just bookmark a tweet though. And according to Twitter's help center they are private and won't show up on the timeline of other people.

The school has admitted to restraining the student but described the behavior by its staff member as "a prank without bad intentions." The staff member in question has already resigned.

Just a little reminder for the people on here. The school did not condemn the staff's behaviour but instead called it just a prank without bad intentions.

Hitachi Ltd and Hitachi Building Systems Co Ltd have developed a touchless operating panel establishing an elevator without physical floor buttons that allows users to experience a completely new sensation.

It really is just a combination of existing technologies though, isn't it? Bars that use infrared and enable touchless interaction with systems have been around for at least about 5 years by now. Unlike Hitachi those systems don't come coupled with a display (they can be combined for the same effect with one though), so I guess this is somewhat new?

Does this work with gloves on? One building I work in has electrostatic buttons but you need bare skin for them to work

You're probably thinking of capacitive touchscreens when you ask this question. For those, you need an electrical conductor (like your finger) touching the screen to work, since the system only reacts to such. Here they are using infrared, so you don't have to touch the screen. You should therefore absolutely be able to use such panels while wearing gloves.

OK, so what? My point was only that punishing "motivation" rather than a crime is wrong. That the Americans do it does not make right.

Your point was? Did you perhaps use the wrong account to reply?

BigYen

I almost never agree with most of the above posters but in this case I do. Monkeypox has caused zero deaths so far, is not transmissible by airborne infection, and the vast majority of cases are being experienced in a cohort to which most people do not belong. It is curable by available means of medication and although unpleasant, sufferers will almost certainly recover. So what’s all the panic about? Target vulnerable populations, educate them as to the risks, treat medically when necessary and stop trying to beat this up into something it isn’t, i.e. another pandemic.

Outside of Africa (where there are countries where the virus is endemic) there have been 3 deaths so far. A 41 year old man in Brazil with underlying comorbidities who died two days ago. On the same day another man in Spain died of an encephalitis associated with a monkeypox infection. And the third one died yesterday although I don't know of more information on that one. It is quite rare, nontheless there have been 3 cases where monkeypox is believed to have played a role in their death.

Ashley Shiba

Monkey Pox, is a gay or bi-sexual transmitted disease. So a straight individual has sexual relations with a bi-sexual partner unknowingly it is going to spread even further. I am not sure now, however, many years ago I was in a gay bar and as a straight woman with my gay friends was an eye opening experience. There were many married Japanese men and I only knew this fact because of their wedding bands.

It is indeed correct that most cases were men (around 99%) of which most engaged in sex with other men (again around the same %), but monkeypox is usually not a disease that is primarily sexually transmitted.

https://www.who.int/emergencies/disease-outbreak-news/item/2022-DON385

...

Monkeypox virus is transmitted from one person to another by close contact with lesions, body fluids, respiratory droplets and contaminated materials such as bedding. The incubation period of monkeypox is usually from 6 to 13 days but can range from 5 to 21 days.

...

The brand image of Nissan, allied with Renault SA of France, has suffered after its star executive Carlos Ghosn was arrested in Japan on various financial misconduct charges in 2018.

Yeah no, he is not the reason I'll never even consider buying one of their cars. But I guess it's easier to point fingers and shift the blame than to admit that their very own actions lead to a big part to the image loss.

When the articles on South Korea wanting to cool things down and try mending the relationship problems with Japan was published, my first thought was:

" Korea will now find something more to complain about"

And here we are!

Didn't even take a week!

Right, what could possibly go wrong this time around.

Japan explanation of Korean wartime forced labor insufficient: UNESCO (https://english.kyodonews.net/news/2021/07/8423f0f870f1-japan-explanation-of-korean-wartime-forced-labor-insufficient-unesco.html)

....

When the Sites of Japan's Meiji Industrial Revolution were added to the World Cultural Heritage list in 2015, Japan promised that it would explain the situation surrounding the Korean wartime workers, based on an understanding that they were "brought against their will and forced to work under harsh conditions."

Why would anyone see an issue with this, right? They merely promised to tell the whole story in order to receive approval, and then went back on their word last time. But no, you're at fault for complaining the next time around, even though you have been lied to before.

UNESCO calls for info on wartime Korean labor on Battleship Island (https://www.asahi.com/ajw/articles/14401656)

The UNESCO World Heritage Committee has expressed strong concerns that the Japanese government is not doing enough to disclose the negative aspects of a World Heritage site where Koreans were forced to work. 

The committee passed a unanimous resolution on July 22 criticizing the inadequate explanation about workers brought from the Korean Peninsula to work at the Hashima Coal Mine on a tiny island off the coast of Nagasaki city.

...

And it's not like Korea is the only nation seeing it this way, as the article on The Asahi Shimbun shows. The committee mentioned here is made up by 21 nations, and neither Japan nor Korea were part of the committee at that time of the 44th session.

In Brazil, a politician saying the army is on his side should be interpreted as a threat.

My thoughts exactly. Especially when the politician is Bolsonaro who has made several rather questionable remarks in the past already.

So...he's guilty of rape. But, she's guilty of defaming him because she wrote about him raping her?

Between this and all the other judicial rulings and govt nonsense lately, I think the acronym TIJ should be changed to WTF from now on.

I believe it's down to the article concerning defamation in Japan, which is kind of weird (at least in my opinion).

Chapter XXXIV. Crimes against Reputation

Article 230. (Defamation)

(1) A person who defames another by alleging facts in public shall, regardless of whether such facts are true or false, be punished by imprisonment with or without work for not more than 3 years or a fine of not more than 500,000 yen.

(2) A person who defames a dead person shall not be punished unless such defamation is based on a falsehood.

At least to me, it seems kind of backwards that you can be punished for speaking the truth unless the person in question has died. There are some special provisions concerning this article, but I'm no expert on Japanese law and therefore have no idea why they don't apply in this case.

Article 230-2. (Special Provision for Matters Concerning Public Interest)

(1) When an act proscribed under paragraph 1 of the preceding Article is found to relate to matters of public interest and to have been conducted solely for the benefit of the public, the truth or falsity of the alleged facts shall be examined, and punishment shall not be imposed if they are proven to be true.

(2) In application of the preceding paragraph, matters concerning the criminal act of a person who has not been prosecuted shall be deemed to be matters of public interest.

(3) When the act proscribed under paragraph 1 of the preceding Article is made with regard to matters concerning a public officer or a candidate for election, punishment shall not be imposed if an inquiry into the truth or falsity of the alleged facts is made and they are proven to be true

But maybe someone else can give us an explanation. I still think it's silly that she has to pay a fine for speaking the truth. He was very well aware of what he was doing, so it wasn't just some kind of accident.

His young wife had a stroke too ?!?!

Yikes, that used to be totally unheard of.

> What's going on?

That's absolutely nothing unheard of. She suffered from a TIA (Transient Ischemic Attack). Long before covid (and therefore also the vaccine) was a thing, there have been studies concerning younger people suffering from the very same. And yes, that also includes children. I hope that it's just the ignorance speaking and you're not purposely trying to attest her case to the vaccine in order to spin your favourite narrative once again.

There are several things that might be the cause of her TIA that happened recently according to her own statements. For starters she started birth control pills not long ago (which can cause blood clots). She just recovered from covid and she was on a long flight from Paris back to where she lives. All those happened in a small time frame.

And to show you that I'm not making things up as I go unlike some other people, here the titles of some articles on this topic.

Analysis of 1008 Consecutive Patients Aged 15 to 49 With First-Ever Ischemic Stroke from 2009 (https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/full/10.1161/STROKEAHA.108.529883)

Predictors of Stroke After Transient Ischemic Attack in Children from 2015 (https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/strokeaha.115.009904)

Boston Children's Hospital site on TIA (https://www.childrenshospital.org/conditions/transient-ischemic-attack)

InspectorGadget

So many things missing from this article

There was an article called FOCUS: Sri Lankan's dying agony disregarded in Japan immigration center (https://english.kyodonews.net/news/2022/03/de643a928d70-focus-sri-lankan-womans-dying-agony-disregarded-in-japan-immigration-center.html) on Kyodo News some days ago. I've not yet been able to read the full article, so I'm not sure if it will answer all your questions, but it will give you more information on what happened. It at least contains some disturbing information I was not aware of until I read part of the article.

Unfortunately I sent the post before I could give a proper explanation. Obviously this list differs from what the article mentions. It is concerning restrictions for people heading to Japan starting from June 1. Yes, it is somewhat off-topic but I think it's of interest to the people here and there is a good chance that the countries in the list correspond in some way with the once the article failed to mention. I mean, if they decide now that people arriving from Fiji have to quarantine for several days in June, I highly doubt that it's one of the countries considered save to travel to.

Since there is no list here, I'll just copy the one from the website of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (https://www.mofa.go.jp/ca/fna/page4e_001053.html)

From June 1, 2022: Measures in response to Omicron variant / New Border Measures (28)

Group “Blue”

Regardless of the vaccination status of the entrants/returnees, on-arrival test, home quarantine and other measures are not required.

Afghanistan, Algeria, Argentine, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belgium, Benin, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Bulgaria, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Chile, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cote d’lvoire, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Estonia, Ethiopia, Finland, France, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Hong Kong, Hungary, Iceland, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Jordan, Kenya, Kyrgyz, Laos, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Mexico, Monaco, Mongolia, Montenegro, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nigeria, Norway, Palau, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Philippines, Poland, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Romania, Russia, Rwanda, Serbia, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, South Sudan, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Taiwan, Tanzania, Thailand, Timor-Leste, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United States of America, Zambia

Group “Yellow”

On-arrival test and 7-day home quarantine (or 3-day home quarantine + negative result of a voluntary test) are required, however, those who obtain a valid vaccination certificate are not required to have on-arrival test, home quarantine and other measures.

Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Bahamas, Barbados, Belarus, Belize, Bhutan, Botswana, Brunei, Burkina Faso, Cabo Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros, Cook Island, Cuba, Cyprus, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominica, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Eswatini, Federated States of Micronesia, Gabon, Gambia, Georgia, Grenada, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, India, Kazakhstan, Kiribati, Kosovo, Kuwait, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Liechtenstein, Macau, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Moldova, Namibia, Nauru, Nepal, Nicaragua, Niger, Niue, North Korea, North Macedonia, Oman, Palestine, Peru, Portugal, Republic of Burundi, Republic of Congo, Republic of the Marshall Islands, Republic of Vanuatu, Saint Christopher and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, San Marino, Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Seychelles, Solomon, Somalia, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Syria, Tajikistan, Togo, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Ukraine, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Vatican, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Western Sahara, Yemen, Zimbabwe

Group “Red”

On-arrival test is required. 3-day quarantine at a government-designated facility is required, however, those who obtain a valid vaccination certificate may have 7-day home quarantine (or 3-day home quarantine + negative result of a voluntary test) instead.

Albania, Fiji, Pakistan, Sierra Leone

The U.S. children ranged in age from 1 to 6 years old, and two required liver transplants. The European cases are in a similar age range, though some have been older, WHO officials said.

So are we just going to ignore that the vaccines have only been authorized for the ages 5+ and the cases are also among kids younger than that?

So according to the Japanese article she got 80,000 yen by her parents every month, they also pay her tuition and she earns somewhere from 70,000 to 80,000 yen every month from her part-time job. No money issues, enough money on hand to actually pay for the order...

Still she knowingly targeted a foreigner assuming that she would be able to pay with a fake bill without him noticing. Had she tried this with regular food because she had next to no money left at that time, I could at least somewhat understand her actions, but what she did is inexcusable. Also I'd say she only showed remorse because she got caught and not because she felt actually bad for what she did. All things considered only a suspended sentence seems too light to me. I would have expected at least some kind of fine here.

How about you read the article and not just the headline?

...

It comes as scientists in Ukraine have been told to destroy all "high-threat" lab diseases.

Colonel Hamish de Bretton-Gordon, former chief of the British Army's chemical weapons unit, said Russian troops could storm a lab and use it as a base to unleash a bioweapon.

...

The level-three lab works with coronaviruses, tuberculosis, yellow fever, SARS, West Nile, and some strains of influenza.

One of the two labs is in Odessa and the other is in Kyiv.

Nowhere in the article does it say that they are working on biological weapons there. That is just something you want to see in the article. But I guess any research lab working with pathogens is a place where they develop biological weapons. They most definitely don't use those labs to research diseases in order to find cures and the like.

virusrex is absolutely right that your argument is solely based on an option not being disproven. It does not seem like you are even willing to confront actual arguments made by others. Otherwise you would at least have acknowledged that you did indeed at the start misrepresent the content of an article. It is quite telling how that is unimportant to you, since Drosten still used a language that lacked absolutes and did not dismiss an unlikely option. Repeating that something can not be disproven is not a sound argument and you would do well to instead provide evidence that actually supports your claims instead. No, just saying that there are people that also believe that the virus is of artificial origin is not evidence but a claim. We all know that there are such people, but the people you are talking about could be the guy working down the street in the convenience store and the old lady you know from the park for all we know. It is a whole different story if those people are actually experts and have made such statements not too long ago.

Remember how I said that scientists hardly speak in absolutes? That is exactly why I wrote that the information Farzan's statement was based on is most likely outdated. Unless they have conducted absolutely no research in the last 2 years, there should be far more information available now than it was before. But hey, maybe they just sat on their hands and didn't do anything at all for the last few years. I refrain from using absolutes here because I myself don't have the evidence to back up that there is now more information available, but common sense would dictate that they did actually try to make new findings. Only Farzan knows if those new findings did or did not change his opinion concerning the origin of the virus.

Also, how can you claim that Farzan's statement is correct? He did not say anything that can objectively verified as either correct or incorrect. Sure, if it's artificial he got it right with the 60 to 70% and if it is natural he still got it right with the remaining 30 to 40%, but that is like covering all possibilities in a statement and then claiming it's correct.

I'm not looking for loopholes either, I was merely trying explaining to you how people in science work and what language is usually used.

Here for you a small excerpt from an article published in Cell (a peer-reviewed scientific journal) back in mid-September and written by 21 different authors. I'm not trying to convince you of anything with this article, but you can see how the authors at several places used language with a certain degree of uncertainty.

The origins of SARS-CoV-2: A critical review(https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0092867421009910#bib82)

Conclusions

As for the vast majority of human viruses, the most parsimonious explanation for the origin of SARS-CoV-2 is a zoonotic event. The documented epidemiological history of the virus is comparable to previous animal market-associated outbreaks of coronaviruses with a simple route for human exposure. The contact tracing of SARS-CoV-2 to markets in Wuhan exhibits striking similarities to the early spread of SARS-CoV to markets in Guangdong, where humans infected early in the epidemic lived near or worked in animal markets. Zoonotic spillover by definition selects for viruses able to infect humans. Although strong safeguards should be consistently employed to minimize the likelihood of laboratory accidents in virological research, those laboratory escapes documented to date have almost exclusively involved viruses brought into laboratories specifically because of their known human infectivity.

There is currently no evidence that SARS-CoV-2 has a laboratory origin. There is no evidence that any early cases had any connection to the WIV, in contrast to the clear epidemiological links to animal markets in Wuhan, nor evidence that the WIV possessed or worked on a progenitor of SARS-CoV-2 prior to the pandemic. The suspicion that SARS-CoV-2 might have a laboratory origin stems from the coincidence that it was first detected in a city that houses a major virological laboratory that studies coronaviruses. Wuhan is the largest city in central China with multiple animal markets and is a major hub for travel and commerce, well connected to other areas both within China and internationally. The link to Wuhan therefore more likely reflects the fact that pathogens often require heavily populated areas to become established (Pekar et al., 2021).

We contend that although the animal reservoir for SARS-CoV-2 has not been identified and the key species may not have been tested, in contrast to other scenarios there is substantial body of scientific evidence supporting a zoonotic origin. Although the possibility of a laboratory accident cannot be entirely dismissed, and may be near impossible to falsify, this conduit for emergence is highly unlikely relative to the numerous and repeated human-animal contacts that occur routinely in the wildlife trade. Failure to comprehensively investigate the zoonotic origin through collaborative and carefully coordinated studies would leave the world vulnerable to future pandemics arising from the same human activities that have repeatedly put us on a collision course with novel viruses.

Ok, I'll try to explain this to you once again. Omitting parts from sources in a way they change how people can interpret them, is misrepresenting things. Why also leave out the part that shows that the latter part is something that was said years ago and might no longer be up to date?

So first we have the part where Drosten states that dangerous things are being done in the laboratory in Wuhan. And then we have the view of another scientist that in his view the virus was likely created in said laboratory. By leaving out part of what Drosten said, you make it seem like two experts gave statements that point in the same direction, while in reality the opposite is the case. By leaving out the information on the date of the latter statement, one could think that both were made around the same time not long ago, while in fact one was made years ago and one is actual. This means that Drosten had far more information available to him when he mad his statement than Farzan did when he made his.

And no, I'm not confirming what you said, at least not in the way you'd like to believe. There is a certain degree of uncertainty in Drosten's comments. But like I said, it is quite common for scientists to avoid absolutes if there is even a minimal chance that the other of two events occurred. Not dismissing a possibility is quite different from presenting said possibility as likely though(remember the 60 to 70% part?). Since he is convinced that the virus was not created in a laboratory, the uncertainty is in my opinion quite likely based on the lack of evidence that to 100% shows that the virus is of natural origin. If there was any convincing evidence that said otherwise, I'm sure that he would have used different words.

Yes, I speak german and I picked just the important parts which shows that a virus origin in a laboratory in China is not off the table.

You picked the parts that fit your narrative and nothing else. In fact you picked it in a way that changed the meaning of what was really said. Yes, it is not of the table but by omitting that he is convinced that it is not the case, you are intentionally misrepresenting what was said. Yes, I'm also well aware that when someone is convinced of something that that person can be wrong. It is also not uncommon for scientists to avoid talking in absolutes if there is another possibility no matter how small. The fact that the word of an expert in a field and a scientist at that holds more weight than yours still remains as well. He made his statement based on facts and evidence, so I'm far more willing to believe him that it most likely did not happen. By misrepresenting what someone has said you're also just discrediting your own posts as well. Why should I believe anything you write when a quick search shows me that you are not being honest?

Also what you pointed out, 60 to 70% is not something someone said just a short while ago.

Even it was said a long time ago, doesn't mean it is wrong. As long as there are still no clear evidence shown by a fully investigation at the Laboratory in Wuhan, it can be correct.

No, it is quite important that this statement was made long ago. Has Mike Farzan since repeated this statement? Maybe I missed an article but a quick search did not yield any such statement apart from articles mentioning the emails from January. He made this statement years ago based on the information available to him back then. In the time after his statement there has obviously been a lot of research and new information and evidence have come to light. If he has not repeated it since, it is just as likely that he has changed his view. We have no idea if he still holds this view or not. There is no point to use it as evidence instead of statements based on current knowledge.

Monty, I assume that the article you're talking about is this one from n-tv(https://www.n-tv.de/panorama/Drosten-Laborunfall-moeglich-aber-unwahrscheinlich-article23115164.html). Do you actually speak German or did you pick up that information somewhere else? I'm just asking to see if you knowlingly decided to omit important parts for whatever reason or if your source is at fault here.

Publizierte Projektberichte würden zeigen, dass "in Wuhan durchaus Sachen gemacht wurden, die man als gefährlich bezeichnen könnte.

It begs to question for instance why this part was omitted.

"Dabei hätte nicht das Sars-CoV-2-Virus herauskommen können", ist der Experte allerdings überzeugt.

The virologist whom you partly cited explicitly states that in his opinion this could not have resulted in the COVID virus. Hopefully it's just a coincidence that you dropped this part, right? While he said that they were doing stuff in Wuhan one can consider dangerous, COVID was not created there.

Der Entdecker des Sars-Rezeptors, Mike Farzan, schätzt die Wahrscheinlichkeit, dass der Ursprung von Sars-CoV-2 im Labor liegen könnte, auf 60 bis 70 Prozent ein.

Why not also cite the part where it is mentioned that this was said in a teleconference shortly after the start of the pandemic (so likely about 2 years ago)?

Vertuschungsvorwürfe, wie sie von Wiesendanger gegen ihn erhoben wurden, wies Drosten erneut entschieden zurück. Die Kritik des Hamburger Physikers bezieht sich vor allem auf einen E-Mail-Verkehr, der Anfang Januar im US-Kongress veröffentlicht wurde. In den E-Mails wird eine Telefonkonferenz führender Virologen nachgezeichnet, die kurz nach Beginn der Pandemie darüber diskutieren, was der Ursprung von Sars-CoV-2 sein könnte.

See? A teleconference held by virologists shortly after the start of the pandemic. Yes, the emails have only been released in January but the actual teleconference was a long time ago. So the part about the 60 to 70& is not something someone said just a short while ago.

Lastly, why also drop the part that leading virologists released a statement shortly after the teleconference that said that they disagree with this view?

The rapid, open, and transparent sharing of data on this outbreak is now being threatened by rumours and misinformation around its origins. We stand together to strongly condemn conspiracy theories suggesting that COVID-19 does not have a natural origin. Scientists from multiple countries have published and analysed genomes of the causative agent, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), and they overwhelmingly conclude that this coronavirus originated in wildlife, as have so many other emerging pathogens. This is further supported by a letter from the presidents of the US National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine and by the scientific communities they represent.

...

I'm honestly not sure if you are knowingly misrepresenting what is written in articles or not. It won't kill anyone if there are a few sentences more to read, so please don't just pull single parts out of context and give people the option to read everything. It would also be nice to provide the URL to the articles you mention so others don't have to hunt them down themselves.

Going by all the downvotes it seems like our right-wing friends are around again in full force.

Lest we forget Japan's behavior last time around when they gained South Korea's approval for listing Gunkanjima. First they promise to tell the whole history of that place including the part about the forced labor only to turn around and present a whitewashed version of history after they gained approval. So Korea was right back then when they were first against the approval since what they likely assumed did happen(the whitewashing). I can only assume that it's the same this time around. They are not against the listing in general but they are against listing a site when you only the part of history is told that puts Japan in a good light while leaving out everything else. And considering Japan's behavior last time I don't think that Korea will buckle this time.

They must stop blaming piracy, while those publisher not doing good job in making those manga available aboard. All they do just blaming piracy all the time.

That's along the lines what I usually write under such articles. If people would not buy their manga anyway (too expensive to import in some parts of the world, they don't speak Japanese, etc.), how are they losing money? This has been ongoing for ages now but it doesn't seem like anything has changed at all. Most of the times I just read about them complaining that someone else is profiting from filling a void they are unwilling to fill themselves. People absolutely should pay for the content they access but for that you have to give them the option.

Also concerning paying people, it would also be nice to pay the people actually creating those pieces better. I've heard about a dormitory project for animators a few years back that provided a cheap place for animators to live since they earn so little. From the GoGetFunding page of the project:

According to a 2015 survey conducted by JAnicA , the average monthly salary for an animator in their 20s is around ￥90,000, making the yearly salary about ￥1,100,000.

*￥90,000→about $800

*￥1,100,000→about $10,000

It is not uncommon that the monthly salary for the first year animator is less than ￥30,000.

*￥30,000→about $270

The reason why the earnings are drastically low despite of the hard labor, overtime work, and long working hours, is because in most cases, animators are hired and paid according to the piece-work system.

Sure, that's about animators but I'd expect that it's not much better for the small fishes involved in the creation of the manga either.

Never was an American. Born in Japan to Japanese and Jamaican parents. You don’t have to be a US citizen to live in the US.

The Washington Post, October 10, 2019 (https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/2019/10/10/tennis-star-naomi-osaka-gives-up-her-us-citizenship-play-japan-tokyo-olympics/)

Tennis star Naomi Osaka gives up her U.S. citizenship to play for Japan in Tokyo Olympics

Naomi Osaka, the 2018 U.S. Open champion and the world’s third-ranked tennis player, will give up her U.S. citizenship to represent Japan in the Summer Olympics next year in Tokyo.

Osaka, whose mother is Japanese and father is Haitian, was born in Japan but moved with her family to New York when she was 3. Under Japan’s Nationality Act, those who hold dual citizenship must choose one before their 22nd birthday. Osaka turns 22 on Wednesday.

mikeylikesit, you probably missed the part about Gunkanjima where South Korea gave approval since the Japanese representatives promised to tell the whole story. Right after the approval they then went back on their word leading to the UNESCO committee requesting them to keep their promise. I doubt Korea would be against making the mines a World Heritage Site if the whole story were to be told. But as they showed with Gunkanjima they'll likely only share part of history with visitors, so you can hardly blame South Korea for their stance.

I absolutely hate writing on this website using my phone...

"... incomplete vaccination is 17 greater than for elderly with three doses." Why doesn't it say that if two doses equal incomplete vaccination?