Forum: Story Discussion and Feedback

My sister ended up in intensive care after receiving Gardasil. She was told there was no risk involved. As a result her kids are not vaccinated for anything as she has zero faith in the medical-government-pharma complex.

The cover up is always worse than the crime. Hospitals that explain why surgery failed and what went wrong leading to the death of a patient are less likely to be sured than those that circle the legal wagons.

the first instinct of the medical profession and government was to cover it up and pretend it wasn't happening.

And the cigarette companies with lung cancer. And the Catholic church with abuse of children by priests. And the list could go on and on. Is there even on segment of our society that does NOT try to cover up its transgressions? Including us as individuals?

And the cigarette companies with lung cancer. And the Catholic church with abuse of children by priests. And the list could go on and on.

All of which was painted as a conspiracy theory in their time.

5. Today the anti-vax crowd claim it's safe to not vaccinate because the diseases we vaccinate against aren't as common in the population today as they were back when the vaccines were developed. Thus they feel justified in not vaccinating due to the low risk. - IMHO they are wrong to assume the risk is as low as they claim.

They are right because... enough others DO vaccinate. They're a selfish bunch that depends on others to take the 'risk' of vaccination to reach what's called group immunity. Too some extend that works but if too many people don't vaccinate it all collapses and they get what they deserve :)

Too some extend that works but if too many people don't vaccinate it all collapses and they get what they deserve :)

As has been stated already, "more children had been harmed by not vaccinating than would likely have been harmed if they had an adverse reaction to any of the vaccinations."

However, are you going to tell the parents of those children who are harmed, that they "got what they deserved"?

Most people agree that the risk is acceptable, right up to the point where their own kids get the short straw.

Personally I think that where a risk exists, the extent should be stated in simple, honest terms, such as x per thousand, rather than, "oh there is little risk", or "it is unlikely". Those vague terms tend to be interpreted as either, you don't actually know the risk factor, or you do know but are concealing the truth.

After all, informed consent requires that you be informed.

However, are you going to tell the parents of those children who are harmed, that they "got what they deserved"?

No, not the children, they are the harmless victims. The parents however...

I think you're referring to the antivax morons, and joy is talking about the kids who have adverse reactions to the vaccine.

joy is talking about the kids who have adverse reactions to the vaccine.

I was indeed.

After all, informed consent requires that you be informed.

So... no murican is capable of informed consent?

So... no murican is capable of informed consent?

Sometimes you are the lubricant that encourages flippancy to run rampant.

I didn't infer that no American is capable of informed consent, I would however challenge the ability and or motivation of the average American to Wade through the vast oceans of bullshit presented as fact in order to collect the few pearls of truth and wisdom buried within.

Nor do I think it is unique to Americans.

I didn't infer that no American is capable of informed consent

Of course not. You implied it.

Murican's, after all, are uniformly uninformed.

Of course not. You implied it.

Murican's, after all, are uniformly uninformed.

I didn't mention any nation in my post so if you assumed it was descriptive solely of Americans then that says more about you than my post did.

But go ahead and assume whatever you desire, it's much easier than taking the time to read and comprehend a post.

polio vaccines did have an issue

Yeah. Especially the type the polish doctor incubated in green monkeys (which were largely carriers of SIV).
(For those who believe that comment is a little too tinfoil-hat territory, and research: you'll find he flatly denied using green monkeys at all in his work. You'll also find, if you look hard enough, photographs of him in his lab in front of cages of green monkeys.)

I'm inclined to believe US college grads on average know less math than highschool grads from the 50s.

concur - most wouldn't know the difference between a dipstick and slipstick.

I'm 51. I know what a dipstick is, but I've never even heard of a "slipstick".

regional variant name for a slide rule

slipstick

I know of two versions of slipstick
1) slipstick also called a slide rule.
2) slipstick is a slick plastic like material {added to
wooden drawers} to aid items to open and close easier

Also, it's those things that stick to the feet of furniture to allow them to slide on a floor without scuffing.

I thought those where called caster wheels ;)p

If they are not smart enough to figure out how predatory lenders are and how usurious the interest rates are on school loans, then they surely aren't smart enough to take a degree that translate to real-world jobs.

Schools don't teach math or the type of applied math that is finance. So yeah, they don't get it. They also don't get that they'd be better off financially becoming a plumber or electrician or hvac certified than spending a quarter million on a "do you want fries with that?" degree like womyns studies or sociology or english lit.

Ernest Bywater
9/30/2020, 10:16:36 AM

@Reluctant_Sir

We have more college grads than ever

With what passes for an education in the US colleges today being a graduate doesn't mean they learned anything useful or more than a high school student learned 40 years ago.

I have no idea whether college graduates today know more than high school students did 40 years ago. How do you know that?

I have no idea whether college graduates today know more than high school students did 40 years ago. How do you know that?

I know this by dint of direct observations. I graduated high school in 1971. The last group of newly minted college engineers I had to train would look like baffoons stacked up against my high school graduating class. Granted that's a small sample base, but the years have witnessed the veracity of it.

You really don't need to rely on personal observation - just the fact that colleges now offer:

"Remedial classes — designed to catch up struggling college students by building core skills in English, writing, reading, or math — have become an increasingly common roadblock for low-income and minority college students. Forty-two percent of African-American students and 31 percent of white students require remedial classes in college." - education.seattlepi.com

Wasn't so long ago that students needed to demonstrate that they already HAD those skills before a college would talk to them.

Well, I think you underestimate the power of quotas. SAT scores for certain groups (think other-than-white-male) aren't treated the same. Rather, within each demographic the students are ranked by their test scores, and then the top however many are accepted.
The white students needing remedial courses would obviously be those in the education degrees.

I agree with what you stated. There are also many other empirical data points such as you've mentioned. All of which supports direct observations.

not a shot at the kids, but a shot at how bad the supposed education system has become.

Not only the education system, the media nowadays aren't likely to inform you objectively either.

the media nowadays aren't likely to inform you objectively either.

What makes you imagine that the media ever at any time in the past even thought about informing people objectively?

What makes you imagine that the media ever at any time in the past even thought about informing people objectively?

Not 100% objective ever, but nothing compared to the blatant lies and misdirections from todays media.

Keet
9/30/2020, 1:38:32 PM

@Dominions Son

What makes you imagine that the media ever at any time in the past even thought about informing people objectively?

Not 100% objective ever, but nothing compared to the blatant lies and misdirections from todays media.

I wonder if we don't see the current time in superlative terms just because we are living in it. I recent heard one of our two presidential candidates say that "this is the most important election in history." I believe both candidates said the same thing in 2016. I could find one or more candidates saying it in every presidential election all the way back to 1960. I didn't check any further back than that.

I wonder if we don't see the current time in superlative terms just because we are living in it. I recent heard one of our two presidential candidates say that "this is the most important election in history." I believe both candidates said the same thing in 2016. I could find one or more candidates saying it in every presidential election all the way back to 1960. I didn't check any further back than that.

That's marketing talk, not lies to cover something up, to achieve something, or to discredit an opponent. To me it seems like morality is declining year after year, especially in politics.

morality is declining year after year, especially in politics.

So, we've been in negative numbers for what, 25 years now?

morality is declining year after year, especially in politics.

So, we've been in negative numbers for what, 25 years now?

Since the first politician/family member was 'trained' to be a politician, not someone who was chosen because he was the best person for the job.

Are we including royalty? Otherwise, sounds like sixty years.

Are we including royalty? Otherwise, sounds like sixty years.

US politics has been going downhill since George Washington retired.

Are we including royalty? Otherwise, sounds like sixty years.

You might be right but I was referring to "modern" politics, i.e. "democratically" chosen governments, not medieval royalties that ruled by succession. The time line will differ for different regions in the world.
The main point is that through the years getting re-elected became more and more important than ruling a country to benefit it's citizens. Trashing your opponent to get or keep the job is now a standard mode of operating, at least in the US. In Europe it's still a little more civilized... for now, but the power hunger is the same. The main problem is that the best person for the job will never get it because he's not in the old boys network and doesn't follow party politics.

. In Europe it's still a little more civilized.

From the little I've followed French politics in the last decade or so... I don't think so. Differently civilized, maybe, but not more.

not a shot at the kids, but a shot at how bad the supposed education system has become.

When I "graduated" from the functional equivalent of High School and headed off to University, I was on a mathematical track. This is a long time ago but I'd estimate the proportion of that year's graduates to have taken that track at around 25%. This was a boys-only school and the numbers from the equivalent girls' school were a lot lower.
Take those rose-tinted glasses off, guys.

Of course, once at university I channeled Danny in Argon's "Suddenly Rich Kid":

I just can't see myself as one more geek with leather patches on his coat sleeves answering questions that nobody's asking.

Yep - I switched to Computers.

You'll find that most of us don't blame the kids. The educational system is, and has been for some time, completely FUBAR.

Teachers are taught to "teach to the slowest" so the stupidest kid in the room can pass. You know what happened to the stupidest kid in the class when we were in school? They failed, and took the class again, and learned enough to pass the second time.
Imagine being the smartest kid in the class. Such a kid WILL be put on Ritalin, because being bored out of your skull leads kids to 'misbehave' in the opinion of current 'educators' (they don't sit quietly and pay attention, they might even read something more advanced than the class is supposed to read) and then sleepwalk through the school system. The just average kids will need to work to get decent grades, which will help them in college while the smarter kids will never have experienced needing to try, and will suffer greatly once in higher learning.

We should be separating kids far earlier into different learning streams. Grade three algebra class, grade four calculus, grade five statistics. The concepts can be taught that early and understood, if kids aren't slowed to the pace of the dumbest kid in the class.

The school I went to put me in pretty much every program they could access, hoping something would work. If they had just skipped me ahead a few grades, it probably would've worked out.
But yeah, if ADD had been thought of then, they would've had me drugged up. Not sure why teachers thought it was so bad for me to be ignoring grade 3 classwork to read Asimov, Doyle, or Tolkein... I mean, I wasn't disrupting anything. They should've just sat me in the back corner where nobody would notice if they were scared of other kids thinking they should do the same thing...

And yeah, it didn't do me a lot of good once I went to university. I'd been so accustomed to just showing up, paying a minimal amount of attention, and scoring high enough on tests that trying that at university didn't go well. It took a while to realize I either needed to pay full attention or put some work in from time to time.

These days, those types of kids have no choice but to stay in school, so the schools are expected to cater for them.

Except that kind of catering does them no favors and does nothing to improve the quality of the jobs they will be able to get.

It seems like in the last 20 years or so, more and more people are falling under what are essentially crazy conspiracy theory kinds of beliefs.

Sometimes it seams like the US government, and other national governments around the world are going to significant lengths to make the "crazy conspiracy theory" ideas seem plausible. :)

Besides, all conspiracy theories are products of a CIA disinformation campaign.

#MetaConspiracyTheory

But Elvis was kidnapped by aliens, the National Inquirer said so.

But Elvis was kidnapped by aliens, the National Inquirer said so.

All conspiracy theories are products of a CIA disinformation campaign.

#MetaConspiracyTheory

All conspiracy theories are products of a CIA disinformation campaign.

#MetaConspiracyTheory

Some, sure, but even in that they only picked up the relay stick.

It's for example well known that the cornerstone of many "New World Order" theories, the infamous "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" was fabricated on comission of Russian Czar's Ohranka. Misinformation campaigns sponsored by governments have long history. Even today Russia has Commission of Eradication of Pseudoscience (and if it sounds like inquisition it's because it is), but frankly they do need it because the shit unfounded and disgruntled academics of ex-Soviet creed can come up is insane, but just as sure it hurts legitimate alternative options abound in a country that's known empire of lies that repeatedly burned its own history (down to Ivan the Terrible, the certified crazy and burner of the church books).

My personal #MetaConspiracyTheory regarding last 20-25 years is that Russian FSB (the heir of KGB) tried and more than partially succeeded to overtake many previously disconnected conspiracy theorist communities, with the sole goal of promoting anti-science and sowing discord and distrust.

, the National Inquirer said so.

You really should stick to the true bastion of investigative journalism - the Weekly World News.

But Elvis was kidnapped by aliens, the National Inquirer said so.

That cannot possibly be true. I just saw him last week.

Thinking of conspiracy theories, what has happened to Remus2?

(he has pushed a couple of what I believe to be discredited theories of that ilk here, I can't find any trace of him since around the second week of August)

I don't recall pushing any discredited theories? Care to point one out to me? Especially of the "ilk" spoken of here?

As for what happened, it's called real life. Specifically, some projects that were awaiting materials and parts got their requisite materials and parts delivered. Most now finished.

Good to see that you're ok.

One was about an associate of the Clintons who committed suicide. There was a theory going around that he had been murdered by Billious or Hillary, you placed that one here.
The second one was Covid related, that the virus had been cooked up in a bio-weapons establishment and had got away.

The second one was Covid related, that the virus had been cooked up in a bio-weapons establishment and had got away.

There is a virology lab in Wuhan less than a mile from the wet market where COVID19 supposedly started.

It's not a bio weapon lab, they were doing vaccine research with COVID using bats as lab animals.

It's probable that personnel from that lab shopped at that wet market.

The lab had safety incidents with personnel getting bit by the bats they were using as test animals.

Did COVID19 "escape" from that lab? Probably not, but it's not beyond the realm of possibility, nor is it so improbable as to put the idea into "crazy conspiracy theory" territory.

It would not be the first time something escaped from a lab. Not even the 100th time for that matter. It's happened around the world over the past decades.

The Wuhan lab had an abysmal safety record prior to Covid19.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/04/14/state-department-cables-warned-safety-issues-wuhan-lab-studying-bat-coronaviruses/

The Washington Post isn't exactly a conservative paper, not by a long shot, so a person would be hard pressed to claim their report was a "right wing conspiracy."

It takes some critical thinking beyond that point. First point of which being this. How exactly does a virology lab conduct their experiments? One of the foundational methods utilized is genome marking.

https://www.genome.gov/genetics-glossary/Genetic-Marker

That's as basic as it gets for a virology lab.

Mixing genetic materials and comparing against a control sample is also basic science for such a lab.

Those things happen every day around the world. Safety protocols within those labs are therefore critical.

With that in mind, the safety record of the Wuhan lab takes on a whole new importance.

Do I believe it was deliberate? No. Do I believe the Chinese tried to cover up a massive screw up? Yes. The latter is standard operating procedure (SOP) for many countries.

Dominion effectively answered the last one.

As for the associates of Clinton, they do have a nasty habit of suicides. Most recent of which was Jeffrey Epstein. That's demonstrable facts, not conspiracy.

Regarding previously mentioned conspiracies of the "ilk" found in this thread, that's simply bullshit on your part.

Flat earth? Nope.
Anti-vaccine? Nope.

There are two things in this thread I do agree with.

The American educational system is now crap, both in quality and excessive cost. Academia has turned it into a money making scheme mostly churning out burger flippers with a severe case of over inflated entitlement.

The American healthcare system is also turning to crap. They are not in the business to cure, but to treat, and expensively so at that.

The American centric view on both education and healthcare, will bring down this country if it hasn't already. Degrees ending in studies, do not build nor maintain a country. Healthcare without a focus on cures, but rather on making money, does not protect those who can build or maintain.

There is a dearth of critical thinking skills in this country. People are far too willing to line up like lemmings without doing their own homework these days.

I always like the ones who shot themselves in the back of the head, a couple of times.

Or the one found dead in the plane crash with bullet wounds.

Just a coincidence ... it does make we wonder, with Ghislaine still alive, and lately we've seen a LOT of human trafficking arrests, if there's something tying those together.

I believe it was Vince Foster who shot himself in the back of the head. His body was found in a National Park already bleed out with no blood or other bodily materials found around him. Yep, sounds like a suicide to me...

As for Ghislaine, she is as dirty as they come, but doesn't likely know anything significant.

Remus2
10/2/2020, 4:41:38 PM
Updated: 10/2/2020, 4:53:24 PM

@StarFleet Carl

I always like the ones who shot themselves in the back of the head, a couple of times.

Or the one found dead in the plane crash with bullet wounds.

Just a coincidence ... it does make we wonder, with Ghislaine still alive, and lately we've seen a LOT of human trafficking arrests, if there's something tying those together.

I believe it was Vince Foster who shot himself in the back of the head.

The autopsy report said Vince Foster shot himself in the mouth.

The report available now says exactly what you reported. The reports from the police and the autopsy at the time, said something entirely different.

Clinton associates have had a curse or something, as an inordinate number of them have turned up dead due to suicide or other less than clear circumstances. Some try to paint that as a conspiracy theory, but it's hard to argue over a dead body.

Where I differ is, I know forty eight of them have turned up dead. That is documented. I know planes inexplicably blowing up, or shots to the back of the head are highly suspicious. What I don't have, and likely never will, is hard evidence the Clintons were responsible.

I know it wouldn't be the 10th or 100th time a person or family in power was attacked laterally by a third party to cast suspicion on them. I also know it wouldn't be the 10th or the 100th time a person in power killed off people with damning information on them.

What I don't do is ignore something odd such as listed above because some asshat somewhere is trying to paint it as a conspiracy. That sad excuse has a time honored tradition going back centuries, as a method of shutting down uncomfortable questions, and attempting to shame/ridicule those who ask them making them out to be loons.

In American politics, both sides of the aisle have played that card repeatedly. Every major government in the world has used that tactic at one point or another. The same can be said for many other rich and powerful persons as well.

The tactic is especially effective in the day and age of twitter mobs where people's attention span is shortened to 280 characters and their memories doing good to remember what was for lunch yesterday.

I know forty eight of them have turned up dead

It is pretty clear to me that Remus2 is an expert in all matters!

Nope, not even close. If you can't be bothered to research it yourself, then it's pretty clear to me you refuse any and all viewpoints that challenge your world view. There is nothing anyone can do about your closed mind.

I'll have to give it to you, you are never in doubt. You have made it clear on several occasions that people who question the basis of your certainty on any matter have a closed mind or are morons or idiots. Your "personal observation" is so widespread on so many subjects that you are ubiquitous.

I'll have to give it to you, you are never in doubt. You have made it clear on several occasions that people who question the basis of your certainty on any matter have a closed mind or are morons or idiots. Your "personal observation" is so widespread on so many subjects that you are ubiquitous.

The facts are clear to anyone willing to look at them. One such fact, is that I'm not the only one seeing the problem here. The only real difference between them and myself, is that I utilized personal observation first.
The statement you made here (quoted above), is simply a higher word count to your previous statement as follows;

It is pretty clear to me that Remus2 is an expert in all matterfes!

In fewer words, you're accusing me of being a "know it all."

Anyone who bothered to use the search function of this forum could put to lie that accusation. There are multiple subjects I've specifically stated I had no strong basis in, or had nothing but a personal opinion of (even in this very thread).

What you attempt to do here is bring into question my statements by painting me as a "know it all" in a thinly veiled personal attack meant to shame me into shutting up.

All that while not providing any substantive argument to demonstrate that I'm wrong, and with that, that others here are also wrong.

With that, why don't you save your school yard taunts and actually put up a substantive argument instead of what appears to be an emotional one.

their memories doing good to remember what was for lunch yesterday.

maybe that's why people post pictures of their food?

maybe that's why people post pictures of their food?

Stranger things have happened. Why people post pictures of food I never really understood unless it was a commercial interest.

Also, in any actually useful degree field (so things other than English Lit, Womyn's Studies, Sociology, and the other "you want fries with that?" degrees) the market value of a PhD is far above what a university has to offer outside a few select positions involving heavily endowed chairs. Universities were never getting the best. Remember: Those who can, do;those who can't, teach; those who can't teach become administrators.

in any actually useful degree field (so things other than English Lit, Womyn's Studies, Sociology, and the other "you want fries with that?" degrees)

There is a lot more in the not useful degrees list including a lot of STEM degrees.

Theoretical Physics
Asto-physics
Mathematics (Lots of fields may use mathemetics, but that doesn't make advanced degrees in mathematics useful outside of academia)

Chemistry, Biology, Medicine, out side of those, only the TE (technology and engineering) are truly useful.

Universities were never getting the best.

They had the best that was available to them. Those with useful degrees working more lucrative jobs were/are not available to the universities.

Mathematics (Lots of fields may use mathemetics, but that doesn't make advanced degrees in mathematics useful outside of academia)

NSA hires mathematicians regularly. Also, lots of computer firms, and finance.

NSA hires mathematicians regularly. Also, lots of computer firms, and finance.

Please note I said advanced degrees (masters, PHD).

There is very little that either computer firms or finance companies are doing that would require either a master's or a PHD in mathematics.

They may hire people with advanced degrees in Mathematics but those people aren't really using their degrees with those companies.

Data mining.

Predictive algorithms for futures trading.

Advanced cryptography techniques, and enhanced encryption.

For data mining you'd want people with degrees in statistics, not general mathematics.

The number of positions available on the other two are probably smaller than the numbers of positions for mathematicians in academia.

1. Statistics is a branch of mathematics.
2. The number of such jobs (outside a number of software firms, the NSA, and most investment banks and brokerage firms) may not be that high, but the average salary would exceed academia.

The number of such jobs even including software firms, the NSA, investment banks and brokerage firms is not that high.

Statistics is a branch of mathematics.

Technically true, but generally those who study statistics refer to themselves as statisticians not mathematicians and statistics has it's own degrees. If you studied statistics as a post grad level you would have a degree in statistics, not a degree in mathematics.

If I'd done Statistics for my undergrad, I'd still have gotten a BMath tho...

If I'd done Statistics for my undergrad, I'd still have gotten a BMath tho...

Yes, but I was specifically talking about grad degrees. There aren't faculty level jobs in academia for anyone with just a bachelors.

I was just explaining why I tend to group all various subfields of mathematics into the one group.

To make matters even worse, education isn't even the main focus of the modern university. They see their primary output as being not the education of students, but original research/scholarship.

I strongly suspect that the main focus of a modern university is to make money. The research, scholarship (and football) are window dressing to attract wealthy donors, who then have something to write off/brag about among their peers.

I strongly suspect that the main focus of a modern university is to make money.

While there are high profile private schools who's focus is no doubt making money, the vast majority of Universities are government sponsored/tax supported and making money is not supposed to be a focus.

For those that are in it for the money, f they made education the focus, and split of the research and scholarship into separate institutions dedicated to those purposes, they could make plenty of money educating students.

In fact, focusing on education would probably be more profitable, as STEM research tends to be very expensive, especially at the bleeding edge.

Most research is carried out by students.

The main jobs of professors are writing articles for publication (and presenting those papers at conference) and writing grant proposals. Seriously, fundraising for their research takes more time than they spend on their research.

It is fairly easy to demonstrate the decline in the quality of education. What's not so easy is to pinpoint the root cause. In my personal opinion, it's an amalgamation of reasons, with no one reason standing out.

Entry level education: Bachelor's degree

Undergrad degree. We were talking specifically about advanced graduate degrees, masters and/or doctorate.

advanced graduate degrees

There are a series of examinations, increasingly difficult the actuary must pass to advance in his or her career. On line it says nine of them, but I remember there being more. Just because you graduate with a bachelor's degree doesn't mean you can be an actuary for your entire career. You need to qualify to be a fellow of the Society of Actuaries to reach the full actuarial career. It is at least the equivalent of a Masters Degree. Underwriters have similar sequence of ten exams to become a Certified Property Casualty Underwriter. (CPCU). Some insurance people says it means "can pass, can you?" I also got an MBA from the College of Insurance in New York. And several associates diplomas in Insurance, Risk Management, Premium Audit and Marine Insurance. If you want to reach the top in insurance related positions, you keep taking courses and examinations for most of your career.

Actually, you can theoretically take the professional exams for a actuary without ever taking a university class. You probably wouldn't pass them, but...
(At least, that was true 30 years ago. When I first found that out, I regretted not just using my highschool years to prep for those exames. OTOH, since I don't find accounting to be too exciting, I probably wouldn't have done well as a beancounter.)

I also got an MBA from the College of Insurance in New York. And several associates diplomas in Insurance, Risk Management, Premium Audit and Marine Insurance.

I'm assuming you worked as an an actuary. Out of curiosity, have you ever worked with the companies that comprise the IACS?

'm assuming you worked as an an actuary. Out of curiosity, have you ever worked with the companies that comprise the IACS?

Sorry, I was not an actuary. Some of the people I worked with were. When I went to them to get factors to use to adjust losses they asked what do you want the numbers to be? They had methods of adjusting numbers to get whatever number the person asking for help wanted. I was a property and casualty underwriter most of my career. We priced accounts and tried to sell our pricing to the insurance agents that submitted risks they represented. None of the companies I worked for are still in existence at least not in the US market. I don't know what the IACS is.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Association_of_Classification_Societies

While initially they were focused on maritime work, in the last century, they branched out to third party verification for insurance purposes among other things. Bureau Veritas and Lloyds Register, both which I've contracted with in the past, also contract with various governments and insurance companies to assure things like LNG port facilities etc are built to spec.

It's why I asked given your post.