for - polycrisis - crime - drug cartel - source: Endvr - The Netherlands - A Failed Narco State? Mocro Mafia - The Netherlands - The New Cocaine Mafias - 2024, Dec

// - Summary - This documentary makes one thing clear, the solutions for the drug problem are inadequate because they are failing to address the root causes - The most insightful part of the entire documentary is near the end when the political leaders in Antwerp are discussing the problem - The leader of the conservative right hints at the right direction to look when he said that - there is a huge cognitive dissonance between - the drug users and - the drug suppliers - The meaning crisis is at the root of the drug crisis and until that is addressed in a systemic and meaningful way, it won't go away

for - quote / key insight - must interrogate the deeper thought patterns else - we risk repeating simplistic linear transition social movements that have failed over the past centuries - Post Capitalist Philanthropy Webinar 1 - Alnoor Ladha - Lynn Murphy - 2023

for - internet - history - Ted Nelson - early pioneer of World Wide Web and hypertext - advocated for visible connections - but failed to materialize

for - quote - reductionism has failed - Denis Noble

"I didn't fully understand it at the time, but throughout my time as a freshman at Boston College I've realized that I have the power to alter myself for the better and broaden my perspective on life. For most of my high school experience, I was holding to antiquated thoughts that had an impact on the majority of my daily interactions. Throughout my life, growing up as a single child has affected the way am in social interactions. This was evident in high school class discussions, as I did not yet have the confidence to be talkative and participate even up until the spring term of my senior year."

save

In order for suspension and expulsion, there must be multiple offense. In this case, there are witnesses and a confession, but that is not enough. Even though there were many different days and incidents of physical assault this is considered a one-time offense? A short talk and a phone call home is the consequences of a death threat and physical assault? Where is the importance of bullying would not be tolerated? Where is the importance of ensuring the victim's safety? This is why this whole system fail to tackle on the issue of bullying. The limit of what the school can do is unjust. How is that resolved? The victim and their family would still feel unsafe, fear, and paranoia.

Is this t test correct? The t statistic and degrees of freedom you've provided don't seem to be consistent with any given p-value given.

Did you receive permission to use field samples?

Have you explained what your exclusion and inclusion criteria were?

Have you considered including ORCIDs for every author? Although not compulsory, ORCIDs are a good way of making sure authors get credit for your work by distinguishing them from every other researcher in the world.

Have you included the term 'Randomised Trial' in your title?

Have you considered identifying the animals you used using a resource identifier? Although not compulsory, resource identifiers remove any ambiguity over which animals you used, and can make your work more discoverable.

Have you included a section where you explain author contributions? You should mention each author by their initials and explain how they contributed to the work.

Have you used the STARD reporting guideline? If so, you should say so in your methods.

Have you reported the degrees of freedom for this t-test?

Have you reported the degrees of freedom for this t-test?

Have you reported the degrees of freedom for this t-test?

Should your references follow a numerical system?

You have referenced this citation

Have you explained whether participants and personnel were blinded?

Have you included a 'Results' subsection in your abstract?

This reference is cited

This reference is cited

This reference is cited

This reference is cited

Have you included a word count?

Did you receive ethical approval for this study?

It's often good practice to accompany every p value with a confidence interval, or another measure of precision.

It's often good practice to accompany every p value with a confidence interval, or another measure of precision.

It's often good practice to accompany every p value with a confidence interval, or another measure of precision.

It's often good practice to accompany every p value with a confidence interval, or another measure of precision.

It's often good practice to accompany every p value with a confidence interval, or another measure of precision.

It's often good practice to accompany every p value with a confidence interval, or another measure of precision.

It's often good practice to accompany every p value with a confidence interval, or another measure of precision.

It's often good practice to accompany every p value with a confidence interval, or another measure of precision.

It's often good practice to accompany every p value with a confidence interval, or another measure of precision.

It's often good practice to accompany every p value with a confidence interval, or another measure of precision.

It's often good practice to accompany every p value with a confidence interval, or another measure of precision.

Have you included figures in this file?

Have you included an email address for every author?

Have you used and cited the CARE guidelines for reporting case studies? If so, you should say so in your methods section.

Did you get permission to use fossils? Who from? And are the fossils publically available?

Have you used the PRISMA guidelines for reporting systematic reviews? If so, you should say so in your methods section.

Have you stated that your data meets the assumptions for an t-test?

Have you used the MOOSE guidelines for reporting systematic reviews of observational studies? If so, you should state so in your methods.

Have you included a participant flow diagram? This is generally highly recommended for randomised trials.

Have you included a section called Ethical Approval?

Have you included a 'Purpose' subsection in your abstract?

Have you used the ENTREQ reporting guidelines? If so, you should say so in your methods.

You've mentioned this figure in the article body

Have you said who funded this research? Make sure you used the right name.

Have you explained how you randomly allocated subjects into experimental groups?

When writing your manuscript, did you use the CONSORT guidelines for randomised trials? If so, you should say so in your methods section.

Have you included a section called "Consent for Publication"? If you are reporting individual level data you must obtain consent. Otherwise, you should write "Not Applicable"

Have you used and the REMARK reporting guidelines? If so, you should say so in your methods section

Have you used the ARRIVE guidelines for reporting animal research? If so, you should mention it in your methods.

Did participants give informed consent?

Have you said which Ethical Review Board gave you ethical approval?

Does your work adhere to the ARVO statement?

Have you provided an affiliation for this author? They don't seem to a member of any institution that you've mentioned.

Have you provided an affiliation for this author? They don't seem to a member of any institution that you've mentioned.

Have you provided an affiliation for this author? They don't seem to a member of any institution that you've mentioned.

Have you provided an affiliation for this author? They don't seem to a member of any institution that you've mentioned.

Have you used the STROBE reporting guideline? If so, you should say so in your methods.

Have you included a 'Methods' subsection in your abstract?

It's good practice to report p values exactly. So a p value of 0.46 would be reported as p = .46, not p < .05. An exception is for p values less than 0.001, which can always be reported as p < .001.

It's good practice to report p values exactly. So a p value of 0.46 would be reported as p = .46, not p < .05. An exception is for p values less than 0.001, which can always be reported as p < .001.

It's good practice to report p values exactly. So a p value of 0.46 would be reported as p = .46, not p < .05. An exception is for p values less than 0.001, which can always be reported as p < .001.

It's good practice to report p values exactly. So a p value of 0.46 would be reported as p = .46, not p < .05. An exception is for p values less than 0.001, which can always be reported as p < .001.

It's good practice to report p values exactly. So a p value of 0.46 would be reported as p = .46, not p < .05. An exception is for p values less than 0.001, which can always be reported as p < .001.

It's good practice to report p values exactly. So a p value of 0.46 would be reported as p = .46, not p < .05. An exception is for p values less than 0.001, which can always be reported as p < .001.

It's good practice to report p values exactly. So a p value of 0.46 would be reported as p = .46, not p < .05. An exception is for p values less than 0.001, which can always be reported as p < .001.

It's good practice to report p values exactly. So a p value of 0.46 would be reported as p = .46, not p < .05. An exception is for p values less than 0.001, which can always be reported as p < .001.

It's good practice to report p values exactly. So a p value of 0.46 would be reported as p = .46, not p < .05. An exception is for p values less than 0.001, which can always be reported as p < .001.

It's good practice to report p values exactly. So a p value of 0.46 would be reported as p = .46, not p < .05. An exception is for p values less than 0.001, which can always be reported as p < .001.

It's good practice to report p values exactly. So a p value of 0.46 would be reported as p = .46, not p < .05. An exception is for p values less than 0.001, which can always be reported as p < .001.

It's good practice to report p values exactly. So a p value of 0.46 would be reported as p = .46, not p < .05. An exception is for p values less than 0.001, which can always be reported as p < .001.

Have you explained how you decided what sample size you needed?

Have you included a short legend for this table?

Have you included a 'Conclusions' subsection in your abstract?

Have you included a section called "Declarations"?

Have you justified using a 1 tailed t-test? This p-value is not consistent with a 2-tailed t-test.

Have you used the TRIPOD reporting guideline? If so, you should say so in your methods.

Have you used the SRQR reporting guideline? If so, you should say so in your methods.

Have you included your trial registration ID? Generally this is compulsory for clinical trials, and it should go at the end of your abstract. You should also include the registry name and date of registration. If your trial was registered retrospectively you should state that too.