The snap was updated on the 10th of December 2020, so expect the latwst version to show up there.
-13 karma · joined August 3, 2020
They could change out of that cycle now that it's actually scarce... but most of these chip manufacturers are too big to be flexible like that.
I'm not sure but I strongly assume yes.
The MAIN reason for this skepticism is that if it was just possible to introduce RNA such that we could have a net positive benefit against coronavirus, a virus that has existed for almost as long as mammals have, we'd have naturally evolved this ability.
The reason we haven't is because it will introduce more problems than it solves down the line.
It could very well be that with a limited understanding of human immune system, we have stumbled upon a solution to a problem that has affected us for millions of years. So, I think some people should try it. But forcing it on the masses is a terrible idea.
Traditionally, vaccines have been tried out in the poorest countries first... because it's easy to do if all you have to do for masses to show up is bribe the leaders and give hungry people free food. If things go wrong, "they died of hunger" and nobody cares.
This time around, it may be a bit tricky to do that, so it has to be tried out closer to home. The problem is people are not willing to be guinea pigs. Many would rather wait and see: https://www.zerohedge.com/covid-19/who-wants-be-guinea-pig-h...
So, I think this is just an effort to manufacture consent. "The rich people are willing to pay a lot for it. Are you sure you don't want it?"
I think there is a better way to do it than to give it to doctors and other frontline workers. They're too valuable. The people who are going to get it should be randomly drafted to get it... over and over again until we reach critical mass. Eventually, we should leave out enough people unvaccinated and hence long term effects can be less catastrophic.
But, overall, I think we're better off eating other things.
Confident and wrong people are the ones who will try their ideas out and get it right eventually. Those who are not confident will keep passive learning and planning and get stuck in self-doubt, and hate others for succeeding by just doing things "wrongly".
I think there's a meta DK effect in light of DK effect: those who learn about DK effect and think that it is favorable to them are the ones to whom it doesn't apply favorably to.
Unlike many other toxins plants put in their seeds to protect them, gluten doesn't seem to have been made just for defense. They just came up with a protein to feed their embryos... and turns out it was also toxic to herbivores. Of course, herbivores which co-evolved with these plants evolved ways to digest gluten... but when humans adopted it, we ran into problems.
The good thing is most of these problems can be avoided by not eating what plants don't want us to eat.
I remember VERY SIMILAR stories that started circulating in the news when Chromebooks started to take off.
So, ideally, companies should follow laws of governments they operate in.
But we have seen over and over through history that companies bring their values and disrupt the local culture.
Also, overwhelming amount of people have blind trust on vaccines, thanks to the PR efforts undertaken in the last decades to sell flu shots.
So, many more people will take it than not. Meanwhile, rich people, can either wait and see or lie about taking it.
In all the linked threads, sort comments by "controversial" for obvious reasons.
It's not ethical concerns. It's competition concerns veiled as ethical ones.
Oh, it has been demonstrated to me over and over again. Unfortunately, you may be too much in it to see it. I am in the position to observe from the outside.
>The existence of other ways of controlling population doesn't mean that those other ways are the only way.
Read this part of your comment again, but slowly.
>Not all food chains are controlled by bottom-up trophic cascade.
And where did I imply that it is?
>some are controlled by apex predators and removing apex predators changes the ecosystem, sometimes in ways that result in collapse.
Not really. The very same ecosystem can adapt to changes in predator population or extermination of predator population altogether.
>You're shifting your explanation. Earlier you said that humans could replace apex predators. When I pointed out the problems with that, now you say it can be controlled with bottom up trophic cascade. Is it possible you just don't understand this issue as well as you think?
Or maybe I understand it thoroughly, much more than your limited religious beliefs allow for. The ecosystem can be regulated with or without apex predators. If we remove apex predators, it will still be regulated automatically. We can choose to hunt if we so desire, and it will work differently but it will still work and work well.
>In the real world, the ecosystems are interdependent on other ecosystems and no barriers can be drawn except by choice.
Ever heard of terrariums? Sure, ecosystems may be related because they're open systems. But they don't have to be.
>That doesn't impact on the well-established thesis
What is interesting is that all these "well established" theses only go so far as to comply with Christianity, never further.
>if humans hadn't been destroying species at an astonishing rate over the last 50 years we'd likely also not have COVID-19
I know, right? The children of Adam and Eve continue to disrupt the harmony of Gods creation, so many thousand years later. When will we learn?
Except coronaviruses have been infecting mammals almost as long as mammals have been around.
Now, mature and much more popular alternatives have well established brand value.
If you mean the regular x86_64 version of Windows, forget it.
Docker Desktop uses qemu, which is the only way you can run an x86_64 OS on an arm64 machine. It can be usable for Linux kernel and command-line applications.
But for Windows, it is very likely that it will be too slow to be usable. People have tried running Windows XP on Raspberry PIs successfully, but it is very slow as expected. https://youtu.be/QQOP29yLOxQ
I mean something could still happen, who knows? Maybe Huawei or Xiaomi or Canonical or IBM will see some value in it and make something out of it, but I fear it might be too late for them.
And Brave is not Chrome. It's based on Chromium. Many other companies depend upon Chromium codebase for their browsers, companies like Microsoft, Samsung, Amazon, Tesla. If Google does stop the development, there is a good chance that someone else will pick it up and keep it shared and open to distribute the work required to develop and maintain it.
I'm pursuing this idea because it has wide-ranging applications. It explains why otherwise "rational" intelligent westerners make no sense a lot of the time. It is very easily explained if I just refer to the Bible.
>apex predators perform a valuable service by keeping the prey populations in check.
Even that is not true. A apex-predator-less ecosystem can function just as well, albeit differently. Look up bottom-up trophic cascade.
>Without them, humans would have to go hunt which is additional labor.
Not necessarily. Bottom-up trophic cascade takes care of that. However, hunting will be more available, reducing reliance on industrial food farming.
>Also its clear that humans wouldn't be able to hunt the same populations in the same amounts in the same way, which would have effects on the prey population, which would affect the rest of the ecosystem.
There is no need to copy a particular behavior. The species in the environment can epigenetically change to adapt to various predation patterns or lack thereof.
>Any ecologist could explain the above, it has nothing to do with the west.
A Chinese or a Japanese or an Indian or an African can in fact say the same thing, because they most likely studied the same things written by western academics. However, they are not so strictly married to those ideas, unless of course, they have been brought up as Christians.
For example, the ideas behind animal cognition and intelligence have been heavily suppressed in the west because animals are not supposed to have a "soul". They are supposed to be mindless automatons. This is rarely the case with non-western scientists.
>There are none, at least not on Earth.
Sure, in a world where God created Adam and Eve and other animals to accompany them. In the real world, humans co-evolved with very specific eco-systems and have nothing to do with most of the rest of it.
>They provide a check on disease by encouraging competitor organisms through biodiversity. They provide a future stock of biological goods and biological inputs for industrial goods that will be used when discovered to be useful. They also interact with our ecosystem because all the ecosystems are connected and make one planet-Earth-sized ecosystem.
That's a huge leap of faith. Most other animals, which are not Christians, attack other predators which are their competitors all the time. They would happily get rid of them if they had the means. In fact, Europe got rid of a lot of predators before Christianity spread. The rest of the world did too, before the west spread Christianity to them, either as the religion as a part of the imperial era or as the education that came out from it spread to universities everywhere.
>They are however the other organisms are busy evolving responses to these potential pandemic-causing organisms and that both keeps them in check and allows us to use those organisms to respond to the pandemics when they (inevitably) arise. Pandemics and plagues are more prevalent with less biodiversity because there is less competition once an organism evolves a means to take advantage of a vulnerability.
Biodiversity of what? Bacteria and viruses? Or mammals? If we didn't have pangolins, some of which are endangered btw, we'd probably not have COVID-19.
If he's prone to seasonal affective disorder (SAD), he may be feeling down because of that and taking it out on his career choice.
If you are feeling bad about your career, family or life situation,
- just buy a SAD lamp such as the Philips Wake Up lamp
- use it religiously for a week
- after a week, assess the problem again - do you feel the same about it?
If you're prone to SAD, after a few days of using, your motivation will come back and the "rational" reasons which you felt very strongly about will lose all emotional charge.
- The old CentOS had a brand value, which Rocky Linux has to earn back all over again.
- The old Red Hat was nice to CentOS or at least wasn't particularly hostile. That does not mean IBM will be nice too.
- It may be too short a notice for current CentOS users to wait for Rocky Linux to come through. They may already move away to other alternatives like Debian or Ubuntu or Amazon Linux or whatever fits their use case.
- If because of some miracle, Rocky Linux turns out to be just as successful as CentOS, there is a chance that either Red Hat or a competitor will end up taking control of it too. Corporate sponsorship is too lucrative to decline. So, it will end up with the same fate as CentOS.
Depends which developed countries and which industries. It is much more common than what it appears on the surface.