Klinky

> Real, fellow humans choosing to ignore the well-being of all the people living around them, enter their neighbourhood and in effect destroy their homes.

Except the people making these decisions or pouring the concrete often don't live in the neighborhood or care, they're "just doing their job".

>Make people personally responsible for their actions!

They can easily hide behind corporate bureaucracy and limited liability. If you want laissez-faire zoning, please beef up corporate civil/criminal liability and punitive damages, so offenders learn their lesson or are taken out of business.

The same can be said about humans. An enormous amount of heat is no longer hitting the ground due to man-made structures in general, way more than dedicated solar farms. Very likely putting solar on roofs is more beneficial than letting it just heat up tiles/shingles, while the building shades the ground. You're basically arguing against building civilization. However, I think human's effects on ecosystems is worthy of investigating, but the "solar panels blocking ground heat" concern seems very tangential and likely insignificant compared to the concerns of human's overall impacts on micro/macro environments.

That honestly just sounds like mental self-flagellation done to inflate the ego and feel superior.

Likely the crypto methods would evolve well before the hardware caught up. It's unlikely that suddenly out of the blue someone would show up with a 13M qubit quantum computer that could crack all wallets.

It's funny how susceptible Americans are to medical misinformation. The FDA is a necessity.

You're kind of citing the successes only here, not the massive number of failures along the way. Nor did I state that an entrepreneur couldn't be a success, more that needing to be profitable could impeded desires to experiment or tinker with things not deemed to have immediate profit potential.

I would like to see environments where entrepreneurs are encouraged, and where failure doesn't mean financial ruin. The current landscape sees a lot of people betting their futures, or being completely unable to participate(health insurance/family concerns).

The US heavily invests in public research. The NIH budget is larger than all US billionaire's philanthropic donations combined. Public funding has great ability to affect change and discover.

"Communists are scary" is a poor argument.

Are you saying it was eliminated in 1800 or in the 1800s? Do you have sources you can cite that makes the case that US "free market" agriculture eliminated famine? Farming in the 1800s was not free of exploitative practices such as slavery/sharecropping, nor was life easy for farmers, many faced hardships or lost their farms entirely. Sure call it a "free market" if you will, but note the evils and failures that comes with that "freedom".

US farming/agriculture actually has a long history of relying on government relief, subsidies, tariffs and low-cost/free federal land use to remain profitable.

Haber process was developed while Fritz Haber was at University of Karlsruhe, a public research university. BASF was hesitant to invest in it, but luckily employee/engineer(not exactly an entrepreneur) Carl Bosch was there to convince them otherwise, and was able to industrialize the process.

Haber process also has its negatives, such as an ammonia resource for war, and the growing use of factory/unsustainable farming actually threatens environments and clean water. It is also one of the biggest consumers of energy on the planet.

Maybe a better example is the transistor(and tons of other stuff) from Bell Labs, but AT&T wasn't exactly a plucky startup, and has a monopolistic/anti-competitive past that tarnishes its history.

Maybe both of these examples show the importance of research, and the ability to tinker/explore solutions without profit motive pressures getting in the way.

It definitely could work if people felt more secure in taking the leap, because it wouldn't mean financial ruin and destitution for themselves or their family. Maybe even social grant opportunities to encourage it, instead trying to tap dance for venture capital.

Much also comes out of publicly funded research, and spinning those findings out into net gains for society instead of maximized profit would be good.

Are these all from the profit seeking entrepreneur?

A lot of our biggest and most transformative "successes" have come at a price, and so do some of the biggest failure. I think the jury is out on net gain.

Ehh, I'd rather society focus on stable foundations that allow for thinking, tinkering and inventions, rather than moonshot attempts at getting rich that destroy you if they fail.

I am pretty sure that 5.0 128GB/sec figure is also total bidirectional bandwidth with each direction being approximately 64GB/sec

Maybe they are considering both directions, i.e. 128GB/sec full duplex = 256GB/sec total bandwidth. Kinda cheeky.

https://pcisig.com/blog/pcie%C2%AE-60-specification-released...

> a maximum bidirectional bandwidth of up to 256 GB/s for x16 lanes

A 20-year-old car still has computers in it. 3G is 20 years old as well.

Please provide reputable sources showing "CDC was bullshitting when they said 90% of ICU patients are unvaxxed".

I am not even sure CDC was directly making such claims and some of the 90% figures were directly from regional hospital systems, not the CDC.

There is already a differentiation. Your employer would still need to accommodate your vaccine allergy/contradiction, so long as there is medical documentation backing your claim. You would then go into weekly testing protocol if you needed to be onsite[1]. If you're 100% remote you could even get out of doing the weekly testing[2].

1. https://www.osha.gov/coronavirus/ets2/faqs#accordion-81470-c...

2. https://www.osha.gov/coronavirus/ets2/faqs#accordion-81493-c...

When has glxgears ever been demanding[1]? I would hope a modern CPU could handle a few hundred vertices(guessing) at 60fps.

1. https://wiki.cchtml.com/index.php/Glxgears_is_not_a_Benchmar...

If the obese and overweight remain fully vaccinated w/ boosters, it's unlikely they'll end up in the hospital taking away hospital beds. The unvaccinated in general are the biggest issue.

I didn't say you said that, but looking at study summaries that state things like "high-dose cholecalciferol supplementation led to SARS-CoV-2 RNA negative status" is why I mentioned "cure".

I don't think I'd classify any of those studies as "very strong evidence". Lots of studies in many different environments(some uncontrollable) measuring different things at different dosages. It doesn't exactly result in finding any particular conclusion, certainly not "Vitamin D supplementation effectively prevents, reduces harm or cures COVID".

At the bottom of the page you linked, you'll find a link for "People at Increased Risk"(also found via "Specific Groups of People" link on sidebar), you'll then click on "Medical Conditions"[1], which mentions a list of medical conditions that increase risk, including obesity. Obesity section links you to the CDC's "Healthy Weight, Nutrition, and Physical Activity" page[2], which discusses exactly what you mention.

1. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/need-extra-precaut...

2. https://www.cdc.gov/healthyweight/index.html

If it has no statistical significance why would you run a campaign at all?

We should consider mandates in cases of severe disease outbreaks, so a bad flu season could see such mandates, especially if healthcare resources were being strained.

At the moment mandates are a compromise due to lack of ability to ensure accountability for individual choices explicitly related to COVID.

Personal injury or death liability, if it was technically possible, seems like it could usurp the need for mandates, since now reckless behavior would have consequences, and those directly harmed would have recourse for compensation, so maybe no mandate would be needed.

It's not hard. I don't know why you wrote all these unrelated questions. This is simply about direct personal injury from COVID infection caused by those who took no mitigation steps to prevent harm to others(COVID specific harm). They should be held liable like any other personal injury or wrongful death due to gross negligence. Simply a matter of taking individual responsibility for your individual choices. Do we actually do this? No. Unvaccinated get a special waiver to not be held accountable for their actions. All the freedom, none of the responsibilities or accountability for their actions. That is quite selfish and entitled.

No, it's not discrimination, it's triage and rationing of care. You act as if hospital resources are infinite and there aren't difficult logistical issues with expanding hospital capacity. Hospitals have already gone to extraordinary lengths to accept more unvaccinated patients. The problem lies squarely on the individuals choosing to not take a preventative vaccine, and opting for the most resource intensive treatment option, when their poor decision catches up with them.

The vaccines are still extremely effective at preventing severe COVID. Hospitalization is extremely preventable with vaccination. Please do not spread misinformation about vaccine effectiveness.

Tons of people are unhappy about guns and are asking for harder limits and controls. Shooting and killing someone is generally still frowned upon. Cigarettes are taxed at an extreme rate, smokers pay higher insurance rates, you can't smoke in buildings anymore and are asked to stay away from buildings when smoking outside in the rain. The world is a better place now that we no longer prioritize smokers damaging "liberties" and "freedoms" over the rest of the population's health.

Are old people with pre-existing conditions consuming 90% of ICU resources in some areas? When comparing resource utilization of getting a preventative vaccine with the resource utilization required from a 4 - 6 week stay in the hospital, and that the health system does not typically need to run at overcapacity except when overrun by unvaccinated patients, we can confidently blame the unvaccinated for straining healthcare resources by ending up in the hospital for a completely preventable disease. It would not be an issue if more people were vaccinated, and we only needed to treat breakthrough cases. The hospitals should not need to grow larger when there is a highly effective preventative available right now for free.

When in a time of a pandemic, with a deadly and highly contagious disease, refusing the vaccine is like refusing the uber or taxi offered to you for free, and insisting on taking your car instead. They are absolutely not unwitting. They are absolutely making a conscious choice to purposefully increase their risk, and the risk of others around them. You like to talk about their personal liberties, but not about their personal responsibilities for the choices they've made.

Should I blame old people for inevitably getting old? No. We all get old, and the health system normally handles this load okay.

Should I blame someone unvaxed getting severe COVID-19, a well known and highly contagious disease with a free vax that greatly reduces the chance of severe infection? Absolutely.

COVID is particularly unique in its long ICU stays. Even for other conditions which could be blamed on poor patient decisions, 4 - 6 weeks in the ICU, and needing vents or ECMO, is not typical or widespread.

In the car analogy, we still have perfect biomarker tracking to determine exactly who, when and how long someone was infected and who exactly they infected. Perfect information. Obviously we don't have perfect information to hold people accountable, so we end up with tragedy of the commons. We need to protect the commons and the best option we have is through vaccination and limited access to the commons for those who refuse it.

Surely they could re-open them, but they do cost NHS quite a bit of money to run.