Mohs offers the best chance to remove the cancer completely with minimal collateral damage. Fortunately your doctor believes that your lesion is at a stage where Mohs is possible.
Wishing you the best.

China has been lending (not giving) pandas to the U.S. since 1972. The pandas in the National Zoo in Washington were due back home by Dec 7 of this year. The Atlanta Zoo still has pandas which are due home around April of 2024. There are currently no further lending agreements for pandas in force.

China has similarly lent pandas to Canada, Britain, Russia, Netherlands, Australia and Japan.

During his current visit to the U.S., Xi reportedly hinted at future panda lending agreements. He reportedly said that China was "ready to continue our cooperation with the United States on panda conservation" and that pandas are "envoys of friendship between the Chinese and American peoples." Xi also reportedly said China would "do our best to meet the wishes of the Californians so as to deepen the friendly ties" and mentioned the San Diego Zoo as a possible future home for Chinese pandas.

So the U.S. might get more pandas, likely if we behave and refrain from interfering too much with China's pursuits and endgames.

The United States will further abandon affordable carbon-based energy in favor of forcing Americans to increase our national dependence on Chinese-produced g***n e****y products. At great expense to Americans and hefty profit to the Chinese. During which time China continues to expand its coal-based energy production for its own citizens.

And we get pandas.

Democrats have "privilege."
As documented time and again, for example, with mandatory (wink-wink) masking, social distancing, prohibited dining out, prohibited visits to the hair dresser, and with the many "mostly peaceful™️" protests in blue cities.

Does AI actually create de novo contents (images, drawings, patterns, etc.) for the subject and background matter, or does it just do a search and then compile a collage of varying content previously created by others?

She would likely be disappointed with the Nezini, and perhaps give up on using a camera for photography. Assuming you wish to provide her with an actual functioning camera, and do not wish her to learn two hard lessons at an early age (that advertising can be deceptive, and that if something is too good to be true (like a camera for $110) it probably is not true), then get her a bridge camera from a reputable manufacturer.

Here is a link to PetaPixel's description of the camera she wants:
https://petapixel.com/2021/10/05/this-48mp-4k-camera-costs-110-and-is-not-for-pro-photographers/

If it's too long to read, check the portion further down the page when a reviewer is quoted as calling the Nezini “the world’s worst camera.”

Of course we all saw it. Your words are a window to your soul.

Wow.

Awesome.

Photo AI has face recognition and, in my experience, often produces a cartoon-like effect. Some details are over-sharpened, while other details -- for example, skin texture in your example -- are lost. Probably due to de-noising that Photo AI also does. The overall effect needs to be dialed back to create more realistic images.

Not to beat a dead horse, but they said "We recommend this because xyz, where xyz was a statement not based on sound evidence. They lied.

There are really so many examples you can easily find by searching; I will provide a typical falsehood and you can find others if you are so inclined. In May 2021 CDC director Walensky said that "v******ted people do not carry the v***s, don’t get sick." This statement is simply false. So much so, that the CDC eventually had to retract the statement. She could have been honest and said the v*****e will help your i****e s****m fight the v***s, will help lower the severity of illness, and hopefully prevent you from dying. Instead, she promoted a falsehood which helped erode the public's trust in the CDC.

So you are saying that money corrupts all humans?

But they did wave their magic wand and promise benefits for which there was no proof in the form of randomized, controlled studies, which are the gold standard to guide evidence-based medicine. Which is supposedly what we practice in the 21st century.

And what has the CDC done to gather "good quality hard data" during the past 3-years-and-still-going of C***d to assess the actual benefits and downsides of v*****es? In the form of randomized controlled studies? Nothing.

They had done enough real world testing to prove safety and a minimal efficacy (something like just over 50% effectiveness) after a few weeks interval. But nothing to what the real world benefits would, or would not, be.

They could not.

So why did they instruct the public that getting v******ted would prevent us from getting C***d? Or that getting v******ted would prevent us from spreading C***d? Or that even those who had C***d and recovered, still needed to get v******ted?

Moreover to mandate v******tions based on no data?

Why not just be honest, and say that - like with flu v*****e - it will hopefully reduce your risk, or lesson the severity if you do get C***d, etc.?

We expect honesty from our healthcare providers, to advise us how to better our health, not fabricated t***hs that are designed to alter our behavior.

They decided to make up their own facts, based on no data, and mislead the public. Hence the loss in public trust.