JamisonM

You are making a very bad choice, that is unfortunate.

Seems like very silly changes that won't help anything very much but serve a narrative that the government is bending the rules.

Very stupid and unfortunate.

So none then. Just wanted to be clear on that.

Is there any evidence of skullduggery?

Ah, OK. I wouldn't characterize the use of a preexisting regulatory channel that is present exactly for this purpose as "easing" but it is a perfectly fair position to take. Thanks!

This comment is a valuable contribution to the discussion wrt AZ's lack of experience & screw ups.

Although I disagree that there was any reason to hold up UK approval, there was clear safety and effectiveness evidence that overwhelmed any doubts about safety in spite of the screw ups.

But I have zero sympathy for AZ even if many, many people are compounding their errors.

Regulations have been eased?

Seems like a better solution that would accomplish the actual goal would be "refresh-after" where you could specify how many days a client should wait until asking again.

Zero maintenance required but still gives a rate-limiting and time window function.

I feel like the author should consider the /actual/ alternative.. Jobbik, etc with real governing power in places that do not "censor" instead of citing 13% support for fascism in France.

It is a complex issue, but censorship does "do" something, lots of research out there about how making things like QAnon just a little harder to access trims off support at the edges. If you want to make this argument you have to reckon with those facts.

Every Realtor licensed pretty much anywhere?

Complaining about the press being fast and loose with the facts while being fast and loose with the facts yourself is your choice.

We've got lots of video of people being bludgeoned that day while thousands of people either stood by or encouraged it. It seems like the specifics of the injuries and their consequences is actually the silly thing to be arguing about.

Jade Sacker doesn't work for CNN. https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-woman-capitol-n...

Feels like you are just getting played and then propagating your problems further here.

The poster is not engaged in a good faith argument so there isn't much point in explaining these sorts of details.

My observation has been that in Canada and the UK any sort of selective or regional restrictions have been extremely ineffective and they offer evidence to people who would like to make bad-faith arguments about the power of restrictions.

My opinion is that two things appear to work to get you manageable levels of COVID-19. The first is broad restrictive measures over very large geographical areas that actually reduce time indoors with other people and compel mask use (some of the Canadian provinces did this well). The second is simply letting the epidemic reach levels that scare people into changing their behaviour (many US states).

He cites Manaus as a positive example of the power of heard immunity, not only is he not an expert he doesn't seem to actually read the news.

There are a lot of comments in here slamming the Australian government for somehow "not understanding the Internet" or whatever and I thank you for this detailed background.

There are good and bad sides to this law and this situation, I personally commend Australia for /at the very least/ running this experiment for the rest of the world that probably doesn't have much downside and might very well lead to some real collaboration, changes and/or innovations going forward. At least they are giving something a try.

The problem with raising the fundamental issues with Bitcoin on HN is that you end up debating the history of hard currencies and their various and well-studied failures with a bunch of folks that believe the opposite, running over the same old ground over and over again.

A deflationary currency system of any kind, if it absorbs a significant amount of the world economy's assets, is going to be a disaster and at this point all we can do is hope it won't happen.

AZ has already said they are waiting until their new US-based trail finishes before even applying. They haven't finished recruiting, 28 days between shots, then (I think) 75 infections in the participants before they will report interim data.

It is going to be quite a while.

The bet was over a fixed term and has expired, so there is no way for the assessment to be premature as it relates to the bet.

I have to confess that I have never been so optimistic as I am now about global interest in addressing climate change, there is going to be a lot of pain but we have the technology to make a lot of progress. I think that once people get a taste of the benefits of electrification in particular momentum will build quickly.

There are a lot of frustratingly silly responses to this article supporting Sale's side of this bet. This is utter madness, Sale wasn't even close!

By virtually every material measure society has improved in the intervening time, in spite of the horrendous response to the financial crisis of 2008 and even the bungled response to SARS-COV-2.

Lots silly self-indulgent stuff that is really indirectly about alienation and whatnot, get over yourselves!

Its not like I don't stress about democratic backsliding and income inequality and God knows what else but the big picture perspective is clear, Sale is obviously so wrong that he should be embarrassed. But he's a crank, so he's doubling down.

I would like to know why you would think that.

In US terms it seems clear that financial support in excess of that available in 2009 onwards will be provided.

Vaccines are being delivered and economic activity will increase as the fear of COVID-19 subsides.

Is this based on political gridlock after the next set of US midterms? Something not COVID-19 related?

I really don't think that 2008 was ever close to anything like "Worse than 1930". For example Europe handled the financial crisis in an almost completely farcical way and didn't suffer anything close to the economic problems of 1930's America. There was never a moment where the US or any other important financial center was at risk of a real bank run of any significance.

Who are the corporate backers that supported expanding medicaid in the ACA? They didn't agree so who was on which side?

If you want to talk about the 2008 financial crisis, ok. Why did Dodd-Frank pass? Why did the corporate backers allow for the creation of the CFPB? How is it that only once Trump came into office did it stop doing its job?

You are asserting that there is a cabal of corporations controlling politics in the USA, what do they actually agree on specifically? Why have things in many instances actually changed when administrations change?

jamisonmasse@gmail.com

Email me

Right, so how did it work?

Yes, I am a big fan of the "it is hard is not an excuse" standard.

I would like it applied to advertisers using tech platforms to evade all sorts of anti-discrimination regulations in housing and employment too!

Right, so how does that work? What is the mechanism of being beholden that allows the ACA to pass with an expansion of Medicaid? What is the mechanism that allows for the expansion in most states but not all? Who pulled these specific strings in these specific places in those specific instances?

I just want and concrete example.

I am very interested to hear about this cabal that controls both Nancy Pelosi and Mitch McConnell - how does that work? How did the ACA get passed in such an environment? How did the Trump Tax Cut get passed? NAFTA? The failure of the TPP? What about the provisions in the recent omnibus that contained all sorts of support for green energy? What are the mechanics of this system?

"Banning them from Reddit simply whisked them away to an even stronger self-reinforcing bubble."

Reddit might be a valid example of this since the forums in question are largely closed communities, denying them one forum moved them en-mass to another. On other platforms like Facebook and Twitter the ecosystem is different, de-platforming works! In the grand scheme of things the traffic at TheDonald.win just isn't very many American voters.

The question here kind of implies that there are two kind of equal realities that these chunks of the population occupy but I think that is not a great framing for understanding what is going on.

The vast majority of the US population live in a very normal a-political reality that is largely untouched by narratives that drive the higher-engaged folks' perception of what is going on.

The sliver of the US population that genuinely occupy a different reality is dominated by people that occupy an almost exclusively right-wing media reality. (There is a left-wing media reality for sure, but it is microscopic, counterpunch is just not that highly trafficked!)

The riots in the capitol today demonstrated this quite clearly when contrasted with the protests that kick off the Trump presidency. The "women's' march" was a fairly clear statement in acknowledgement of Trump's presidency but a denial that it was truly representative of popular will. Today's demonstration & riot was populated by a mix of people consuming non-facts and fabulists exploiting those people. QAnon followers were prominent and appeared to be at least a plurality if not a majority of the participants. The people filming themselves in Nancy Pelosi's office were prominent neo-nazis or YouTube provocateurs (Fuentes and BakedAlasaka).

A few thousand people on the capitol overwhelmed a police force that was at least partially sympathetic and was certainly understaffed, in the alternate reality where the opposition to Trump were anti-democratic in the same way they would overwhelm any force arrayed against them in a similar way much more easily through sheer quantity, but they don't hold those views or endorse those methods.

Roughly 1/3rd of voters thing the presidential election was fraudulent, but closer to 1/5th think Trump really won according to Morning Consult, some of this is just facing the fact that the US has always been a bit of a low-trust/conspiratorial society. Some of what is going on is certainly better reporting on what is really happening - things that have actually always happened. Some of what is happening is just good old fashioned bad leadership!