If you don't want the us to waste money on that you probably actually shouldn't want the us to engage in "imperialism" at all.

1: https://www.adl.org/resources/article/francesca-albanese-her...

The odyssey itself wasn't trying to be historically accurate; it's basically fantasy. Why would you expect that a movie adaptation would be historically accurate?

Occasionally there are even knockoffs that improve on the original product in some way, although usually they are just nearly as good at a much lower price.

Whereas if it's costco it will at least be easy to get your money back if it dies in six months.

The pooling of risks is literally what makes it insurance. If any part of health insurance is arguably not actually insurance it's the annual preventative care that is certain to apply to you.

The article doesn't say that more people refused than was previously known.

It just concludes that most people weren't following instructions in a way that would have supported the validity of the supposed memory experiment.

Are you using the one that's part of Microsoft 365?

Generally avoiding pm2.5 particles is a reasonable precaution but you can't say that things like air filters are actually the most effective health intervention someone can do until you test that experimentally. That's simply not how stuff like this works. There are virtually infinite health interventions that seem plausible but don't actually work when tested.

As with a treatment for alzheimer's disease, cancer, or heart disease, you can't simply say that X is correlated with disease, an intervention Y reduces X, so therefore Y must have positive health effects without actually testing Y.

> This is like "there's no evidence parachutes improve survival after jumping from a plane."

A proposed intervention like air purifiers that have no direct evidence but are plausible because they reduce something that has been shown to be correlated with negative long term health outcomes is the opposite of something like parachutes that we directly know work.

This is a completely bizarre comparison and it's like saying that skepticism of an Alzheimer's drug targeting amyloid plaques is like doubting parachutes work because we know that amyloid plaques are correlated with Alzheimer's.

I think you are correct that the headline is wrong because Nintendo is not asking to be refunded $200 billion, but to be precise the number doesn't seem to be the compensation sought by all the companies that are suing either.

Nintendo is the only plaintiff in this specific suit so joined in this article does not mean they are all plaintiffs in one suit, just that they have all filed suits.

The Nintendo complaint specifically mentions $200 billion, but I think this is just supposed to be the rough amount the us government collected in total based on the tariffs that the supreme court found to be illegal from all companies/countries (as background information), not what Nintendo or any other specific companies that are suing are requesting be refunded.

While I think that the things the person lists on that site are good precautions (although I think not using an ultrasonic humidifier would be better stated as only using distilled water with ultrasonic humidifiers), I think that saying that doing these things is "is one of the best (and cheapest) ways to improve overall health" is too strong, because while there are lots of studies showing population level correlations between pm2.5 particles and health problems, I don't think there is currently evidence specifically showing that things like using air purifiers actually improve health.