Mulot, M., Segalas, C., Leyrat, C., & Besançon, L. (2021). Vaccination rates and COVID-19 cases: A commentary of “Increases in COVID-19 are unrelated to levels of vaccination across 68 countries and 2947 counties in the United States.” OSF Preprints. https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/72abp

Melton, J., & Sinclair, R. (2021). COVID-19 Infection Rates Are Related to Population Rates of Vaccination: A Response to Subramanian and Kumar.

At least I think this is talking about this as limitation/problem.

The limitation/problem being that it's not good/useful for performing after-transaction code only for specific actions.

But the next sentence "This is beneficial..." seems contradictory, so I'm a bit confused/unclear of what the intention is...

Looking at this project more, it doesn't appear to solve the "after-transaction code only for specific actions" problem like I initially thought it did (and like https://github.com/grosser/ar_after_transaction does), so I believe I was mistaken. Still not sure what is meant by "instead of specific model actions". Are they claiming that "before_commit_on_create" for example is a "specific model action"? (hardly!) That seems almost identical to the (not specific enough) callbacks provided natively by Rails. Oh yeah, I guess they do point out that Rails 3 adds this functionality, so this gem is only needed for Rails 2.

Apparently, there is an issue with key fob security on 2020 Kia Sportage and Hyundai models.

Also, Columbus Police and 10TV don't know how to spell Hyundai or use spell check.

Opinions are partially correct they are actually: Opinion of the court: Brennan Concurring: Kenny Dissenting: Rehnquist, Stevens

I cant find the exact part where it specifies always being able to prohibit expression when its offensive or disagreeable. but I definitely think this is wrong

AND non verbal conduct. Not sure if this counts as a flaw. Its missing a part.

I believe this is incorrect: I think this is the correct reasoning regarding legitimate interest in the question of flag desecration "we do not doubt that the government has a legitimate interest in making efforts to "preserv[e] the national flag as an unalloyed symbol of our country."

it should be regarding the first amendment not second!

this didn't happen. in front of Dallas city hall Johnson unfurled the American flag, doused it with kerosene and set it on fire. as the flag burned protestors were chanting "red white and blue we spit on you"

case does not regard Arthur smith, its Gregory Lee Johnson

missing parts of the citation: 491 U.S. 397 (1989)

Correct legal citation..

Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, 536 U.S. 639 (2002).

no this is wrong.. the text says that "It is part of a general and multifaceted undertaking by the State of Ohio to provide educational opportunities to the children of a failed school district"

this is incorrect,

the Ohio program is neutral in all respects toward religion.

O'Connor did not dissent, here is the correct conclusions:

OPINION OF THE COURT: Rehnquist CONCURRING OPINIONS: O’Connor, Thomas DISSENTING OPINIONS: Breyer, Ginsburg, Souter, Stevens

Decision was not 7-2... it was 5-4, ruling that that the Ohio school-voucher program did not violate the establishment clause of the First Amendment

Zelman v. Simmons-Harris is not on page 194, its on 395

this is wrong, it wasn't in 1982, the book states the case as

Zelman v. Simmons-Harris (2002)

Incorrect. The constitutionality does NOT turn on whether and why in a particular area...

Shouldn't it not violate if they are neutral? I think this is wrong

book says "The program permits the participation of all schools within the district, religious or nonreligious"

I don't think this is apart of the opinion, I cant find where it says that only certain groups are free to participate.

This area is incorrect, the books version states, "Although no public schools from adjacent districts opted to participate in the program, fifty-six private schools, 80 percent of them religious, did. Religious schools were the choice of the parents of 97 percent of the students who used tuition vouchers to attend private schools."

Wrong, Cleveland school district faced a crisis

Incorrect wording. the instant program IS one of true private choice.

Wrong, it supposed to be did the voucher program violate the establishment clause?

Jacobson, R. M., Targonski, P. V., & Poland, G. A. (2007). A taxonomy of reasoning flaws in the anti-vaccine movement. Vaccine, 25(16), 3146–3152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2007.01.046

Health Nerd on Twitter. (n.d.). Twitter. Retrieved October 17, 2020, from https://twitter.com/GidMK/status/1316511734115385344

Ending Covid-19 via herd immunity is “a dangerous fallacy.” (2020, October 14). The Guardian. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/oct/14/ending-covid-19-via-herd-immunity-is-a-dangerous-fallacy

Holcombe, A. (2020, September 30). Conventional journal rankings—Fight them! Medium. https://medium.com/@ceptional/conventional-journal-rankings-fight-them-9c6db600b0dd

Mario Elia on Twitter: “While I commend them for this work, a few things jump out at me right away looking at the data tables. The sample of the patients was heavily skewed towards a few demographics. 1/” / Twitter. (n.d.). Twitter. Retrieved July 11, 2020, from https://twitter.com/supermarioelia/status/1280709931235184641

Darren L Dahly, PhD on Twitter: “If you find @MicrobiomDigest’s spot the duplication challenges a bit tooooo challenging, I’ll give you an easy one. See if you can spot the batshit crazy in this table 1, which is supposedly describing a nationally representative sample. https://t.co/dDdsq0YjR7” / Twitter. (n.d.). Twitter. Retrieved July 11, 2020, from https://twitter.com/statsepi/status/1280995113439834114

mike johansen on Twitter: “This paper has got some MAJOR problems. I don’t know why this paper was accepted for publication (nor submitted for publication to be frank). Let’s dive in. 1/” / Twitter. (n.d.). Twitter. Retrieved July 11, 2020, from https://twitter.com/mikejohansenmd/status/1280728008643555328

Fife, D., Lung, M., Sullivan, N., & Young, C. (2020). When Values Collide: Why Scientists Argue About Open Science and How to Move Forward [Preprint]. PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/q9d28

Collins, G. S., & Wilkinson, J. (n.d.). Statistical issues in the development a COVID-19 prediction models. Journal of Medical Virology, n/a(n/a). https://doi.org/10.1002/jmv.26390

It is funny (and slightly concerning) that Lady Denham is boasting about the fact that her relatives are poor. She is sharing information that she thinks is impressive but probably won’t be to others.