I use mine as an ebook reader and to watch netflix et al. especially when I’m traveling. It was only 200€ for a very good 10" display, good sound and decent speed. Pretty good value for money and a lot more comfortable for me than a laptop for these use cases. It’s not the most important device I own but it has its uses.

You should get out of the US more

Right? It’s so frustrating that there’s no media outlet containing a clear list. It’s such an easy thing to do for journalists and they can’t be arsed to do the basics of their job. All I could find out so far is that UK and US stayed

TNG first season? Eww

What an odd thing to say… “If conditions would be completely different the statistics would be different, therefore I don’t trust the statistics”. What’s your point exactly?

Are the yanks okay?

But why don’t they just ask the mother whether she took any medication or drugs she shouldn’t have? Given what happened in the article, the information provided by the mother would probably be more accurate anyway. Routinely not believing women is on brand, though. Again, we’re talking about women with absolutely no history of drug abuse. I’d seriously like to know how many women with no prior history of drug abuse start doing drugs just as they are getting pregnant to warrant routine testing.

Another problem with these kinds of tests is that they are not accurate enough. If you test urine samples routinely, the majority of your tests will be false positives. (Example: you test all pregnant women, 1% take drugs, the test is accurate 98% of the time. Congratulations, 2/3 of your tests are false positives.) That’s why you only do those tests if you have a suspicion based on other data and not just test everyone.

Please explain?

Hospitals have no business testing for drugs without cause, which they do in the US per the article: “Hospitals across the country routinely drug test people coming in to give birth.” Screening people routinely for drugs is some police state shit.

You’re right, it doesn’t say that she didn’t consent. It also doesn’t say she did either, the article simply doesn’t address it.

However, I just cannot imagine a scenario, where someone would be consenting to a drug test without coercion, can you? Why would she? If you didn’t take drugs, there’s no benefit. If you did take drugs and you want the doctors to know, tell them. If you took drugs and you don’t want the doctors to know, you don’t consent. And that doesn’t even take into account false positives. I don’t see any conceivable reason why anyone would subject themselves to a drug test where no possible outcome would be positive for you. So, please enlighten me, how are these completely voluntary drug tests with zero benefit to the test subject so common?

Add to that, that these tests are not good enough for random testing. You have too many false positives, so you must have additional indicators of drug use to even consider them from a purely scientific perspective.

OP might like to shit talk the US and try to find topics specifically to do so. But they are not wrong here.

You ought to understand liberal democracies don’t just routinely drug test their population without consent or at least clear indication of a crime and following a court order. There was a time where the US at least aspired to be in the liberal democracies club. That you guys defend this practice even on a left-leaning platform such as lemmy is seriously frightening.

Same in German: “Krieg der Sterne” - “War of the Stars”, but that title was only used for Episode IV. They switched to the English title afterwards