2,230 karma · joined August 10, 2016
It’s a long story, but part of the reason is that bacteria evolve resistance in the presence of the antibiotic, while here, the virus would need to randomly evolve it in the unvaccinated, then sustain useless adaption for a while until it gets the opportunity to infect a vaccinated person.
That Scott guy is/was somewhat problematic, but recognizably smart. It’s one of maybe five people where I consciously notice someone’s intelligence.
The rest of that community is toxic and misguided, starting with the idea that emotions are somehow “bad’.
> I promise we exist and are real humans! But that is exactly what the aliens would say
That… is a go-to joke I keep using on OKCupid, only with axe murderers instead of aliens.
I’ll stop hitting on you now, but might write up some impressions of the actual product in the next few days.
The reference in the name & the monospaced font work well to establish a sense of being a developer‘s company, but not just anyone but someone with a background in math(?). Perfect marketing to get me, although I‘m not a lucrative prospect. Is it possible that you’d catch bigger fish by going corporate? Possible, yes. But it’s my impression this has and still is shifting drastically.
One meta-issue for now: somehow, I always read the imprint when I am checking out some software or service. I can’t really make a case why it’s helpful, and you are obviously free to maintain an air of mystery. But if it’s just an oversight or you haven’t gotten around to it, just naming a city & country goes a long way to convincing me that you exist. Short bios are also useful, or links to your Twitter accounts, although J found those with only minimal stalking.(This preference may just be a result from my home country of Germany requiring such data and making it possible to get into the habit).
BUT: I wouldn’t be surprised if there are difference between age groups, social classes, and regions of the globe, and that it may even be possible they are still growing their audience.
Throwing people into jail for criticizing GWB? Yeah, that’s far-right. A;so far-out, and authoritarian.
But then there’s another, shadowy market, where they sell far cheaper ads to really lowbrow content that people are more likely to click on, but that just doesn’t have an obvious way t monetize these eyeballs?
Getting less money, diminishing their platform with bad content, breaking laws by not disclosing it, and keeping it all secret?
What I’m saying is there may have been a reason why you were downvoted.
Both lists are probably correct. (It’s not like—completely hypothetical—view counts of videos which are sort-of like the the double-slit experiment for Facebook.)
Which one is more meaningful? It probably wasn’t entirely accidental that they started with measuring engagement, and everything they (and others) do is intended to raise engagement.
The pivot to view counts is motivated only by their increasing fear of nor just increasing regulation. They are simply bleeding users, especially the most lucrative groups that are young, educated, and international, who are leaving the country club of social networks because they see these lists-even though their own feeds have maybe slowed down but not changed much otherwise.
Do you really believe it's a lack of arguments, research, testimony, movies, or museums that allow that anti-semitic trope to fester? How much more does it take to convince these people?
Yeah, it's great to be in the majority. Ask some Asian folks how their 2020 went. Or Middle Eastern or, for that matter, Indians in the US, ca. 2002.
Ask some black defendant how confident they feel to get a fair trial, knowing half their jurors love to watch reruns of COPS.
Ask the (surviving) jews at that Philadelphia synagogue how benign they believe the stories about Soros eating babies are.
And, fundamentally, ask yourself how good a regulatory system, with some element that measures an outcome, and some element that is regulated, can work when the information flowing between them cannot be trusted. Such feedback-dependent regulatory systems may be your AC connected to a thermometer. Or your elections, which are usually supposed to, for example, react to stories of corruption.
There's much love of "free speech" here. If it doesn't matter if the speech is correct or not, that can only mean that speech doesn't make a difference either way. In that case, what's the value of free speech?
Or is "speech" some magic thing that can never hurt, but still be useful? In that case, we should just get GPT-3 to give us an endless stream of plausible texts, and the magic fill find the gems in it.
The committee chair in question is from the liberal (as in libertarian, for Americans) party, which isn’t part of the governing coalition.
That being said, the criticism isn’t necessarily outside the mainstream, and both his Free Democrats and, even more so, the Green Party that would likely agree could well be part of the next government six weeks from now.
But the article isn’t about re-litigation of that election, or the next one. It starts from the premise that the result of the election was unprecedented, and that someone like Trump would not have had a chance in earlier times.
In a way, the article indeed doesn’t so much speak to you, but about you, wondering what cultural factors are needed to support the sort of emotional state that would lead people to glorify a half-bit wannabe gangster.
People choose their tools for some reason(s), and there is no law of man or nature that says that using a common tool for some esoteric purpose is somehow wrong, just because you consider it too easy.
And I don’t even understand[0] why you feel the need to bring some racist theorizing from the 70s into it? Yes, I would believe there are many people with severe mental retardation that are, nonetheless, happy. That doesn’t mean, however, that I won’t try to avoid head trauma.
0: I’m kidding… I know exactly why you keep bringing up supposed IQ differences between ethnicities in your comments. But, unfortunately, HN considers it totally ok to say “look at Africa and how stupid but happy they all are” as long as you make it sound sciency, while calling out such racism is considered ill-tempered.
Contact tracing, as currently implemented in iOS and Android, does not reveal location data to third parties. There are many widespread uses of location data that are far worse for privacy.
For contact tracing to be useful, you need to:
- believe in the germ theory of disease
- believe in the ability to trace contacts at any level than pure randomness
These requirements are so low, it makes contact tracing at least theoretically useful at a level close to a tautology.
I find your document quite interesting in that it seems to recommend a lot of measures that we are using now.
And even if it weren’t, they were wearing masks when interacting with these toddlers, which, at this age, makes a lot of difference in how well you can elicit the response you want from them.
An IQ of 80 is borderline pathological. There is no way for something of this magnitude to happen, on average no less, without violence, substance abuse, or similar.
‘This memory will never be erased from my mind”
Quote; “ This article is a preprint and has not been peer-reviewed [what does this mean?]. It reports new medical research that has yet to be evaluated and so should not be used to guide clinical practice.”
So those are well-defined categories. That one might just be a detour to the other doesn't seem to be relevant.
And, of course, the problem is that, far too often, fans of economic theory make the opposite mistake, and consider cooperative behaviour as a failure of rationality, when in reality they are just not thinking it through to the end.
But, to just quickly make the argument the author would have thought to mention if they had spend five minutes on Google and were intellectually honest: CNs aren't intended to allow you stop reading, although that may be an option for people that really want to.
Their primary mechanism is different: it's a quick, easy, and, for those who don't care, totally trivial signal to the readers that the writer or speaker is aware that the content may trigger strong emotions, but that it isn't their intention to inflict any harm.
It's a tiny gesture that, for those where it matters, makes a whole lot difference. If you can't quite follow along, just imagine how different it feels if someone intentionally punches you compared to inflicting the same amount of physical harm inadvertently.
If anyone is being overly emotional, it's those who are somehow incensed by others' attempts to avoid harming people. I'm not especially harmed by reading about violent rape, but I can easily understand how someone might be. How its possible to deny that, but get all enraged about a single line of italics at the top of a five-page story is, unfortunately, beyond my abilities.
Neither, by the way, is it censorship. It's the opposite, a mechanism allowing people to make informed choices, thereby expanding the universe of possible content that can be used for any given purpose without fear of offending or harming anyone. If you somehow managed to abolish the MPAA rating system, you wouldn't get more of the movies that were previously rated R. You'd get none.
In the years before, how often were you vaccinated? Exactly: you probably weren't. Millions of vaccinations were given ib the last few months, orders of magnitude more than usual. And while most are usually given to toddlers, now the 60 to 95 year-olds got most of the vaccinations.
You know what happens a lot to 80 year olds in the six months after they are vaccinated? They die.
You know what happens a lot to 80 year olds in the six months after eating ice cream? They die.
Also, as has been reported plenty of times, read by you (in, for example, the article above), and ignored because it doesn't fit your worldview, is that VAERS is, as the URL says, "open". It's a relic from a time where people tended to be sane, and wouldn't just submit all sorts of imaginary things to a medical database.
The article cited above summarises what the people collecting that data have concluded from it. How can you make an argument about the data they collect and publish, implying that you trust them, and then, in the very next breath ignore them and, I assume, next accuse them of being either too stupid or corrupt to say anything about that data?
The argument is, essentially:
- people used to believe that being a chess grandmaster is universally considered proof of high intelligence
- people also believed that opening a refrigerator requires strictly less intelligence than becoming a chess grandmaster
- we now have build artificial "intelligence" that easily beats any human in chess. Ask it to open a refrigerator and see what happens.
-> Therefore, our concept of "intelligence", as a single, ordered, continuous, and measurable quantity, is demonstrably wrong.
You can proof plenty with a single datapoint or two. As long as you don't care about the color, half a sheep proofs sheep exist. There's no n and no p-value attached to that because it is not subject to measuring errors and confounders. Sheep just is.
They article isn't quite clear on how our biases are potentially dangerous, because it happens to be the point of warnings to come before the actual damage occurs. But when someone is setting out to revolutionise all our lives with something that uses the term "intelligence", and neither they nor we can actually come up with definition of the concept, maybe the burden of proof should be on those saying it's all fine, and not those asking for a bit of occasional reflection.
I also just don't get what's controversial about the article. It doesn't even ask for anything dramatic, or specific. It's the MIT robot tech leader, who knows what they're talking about. And when people start invoking the human rights of abused robots, I am confident the robotics community wouldn't object to that being either a joke or misguided anthropomorphising.
So, what gives? Is it supposed to demonstrate the regime's ability to break you? Do these dictatorships just suck at PR as much as they suck at other aspects of governing?
No, it has created a generation. of conspiracy-mongering freaks.
Or, more precisely, it has allowed that particularly seedy underbelly of society to become more noticeable.
It was still going strong after almost a decade of use and got €300 as a trade-in. If that’s Apple‘s idea of planned obsolescence, I support their plan.
As but one point: only one referendum rejected the Treaty of Maastricht, the Danish one, with a margin of 49:51. In response, some changes were adopted an the Danish people overwhelmingly voted for it in a second referendum, 68:42.
The linked amendments that thoroughly resolve this complaint have already been adopted by parliament. This article is therefore picking a fight with an old version of a working document.