1,602 karma · joined October 25, 2018
That's not anywhere in my metaphor.
> The benefits of society as a whole are not equally shared.
This is true but not relevant to my point.
> The wealthiest in society benefit the most from a functioning and stable federal bureaucracy.
This is less likely to be true and also not relevant to my point.
It's like responding to "Joe didn't pay for his main course at the restaurant" with "yeah but he paid for some of the appetizers."
I think this is a big point. This would be expensive and there will be a temptation for politicians to underfund the operations and give the difference back as tax cuts.
This has been discussed ad nauseam. Nature isn't a foreign policy magazine, so it's not really the greatest place for advising how the US should respond to a disinformation campaign. But communicating about healthcare policy seems to be reasonably in its area of expertise.
> The flip side that wasn't discussed is the belittling and censoring of voices that were skeptical of the narratives, which engendered even more distrust
The disinformation campaign was allowed to got on essentially unchecked for a long time because it was politically sensitive to speak publicly about it. As we started to get more confirmation that it was being funded by foreign governments (e.g. [0]), pushback against the disinformation became stronger.
> Their strategy of information control backfired, and they doubled down. Now we've got a huge swath of US citizens that will never take the vaccine.
I am highly skeptical there is any evidence for the causality you are implying here.
A disinformation campaign like this is an attack on Americans by a foreign military. People may reasonably disagree about how it should be handled, but at some point citizens have a right to defend their country from attacks.
[0] https://www.wsj.com/articles/russian-disinformation-campaign...
If you do want to memorize it, then some form of flashcards with spaced repetition.
If you want to understand it, keep reading and dig deeper into the topics that interest you. Also for technical stuff work through some examples.
I have a few old boxes that run VMs. Some of these VMs make up a virtual k8s cluster, but almost everything I need runs on bare VMs rather than on k8s.
When I find something particularly annoying to administer, I move it off a bare VM and onto k8s.
The main thing this gives me is a migration path off of "a bunch of custom shell scripts" toward something I believe will be useful in the long run.
A bunch of shell scripts and rsync will work for a long time until they don't. And when they stop working you'll be in for some pain.
- Instagram was at one point a startup. It's common for startups to write in a scripting language to optimize for speed of adding features. Then if you grow or get acquired, the scripting language often eventually gets replaced by a language more optimized for maintenance cost, safety, and/or speed.
- Data scientists often only really know scripting languages, and at any rate scripting languages are useful for prototyping algorithms that need to change daily. Hence a lot of hedge funds use Python. For code that is stable and really matters for performance purposes, it's common for funds to use C/C++ or even FPGAs.
A majority of Americans support regulation of big tech https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/07/20/56-of-ameri...
Although in that case the author had a contractual requirement to clear the book and didn't. In that sense it's similar to defying an NDA or publishing your company's trade secrets.
The big one here of course is communism. Arguably the most censored idea in the history of American politics. The government even held hearings to track down adherents.
In some places it's still difficult to have an uncensored discussion about much tamer topics like labor organizing.
> pedophilia
Lolita was frequently banned
> classified government information
This is generally celebrated rather than challenged by readers. The Pentagon Papers, Snowden leaks, and the Panama papers are famous examples.
You have not established any point where he lied or stretched the truth. What you have established is your personal axe to grind against Fauci.
It's good to examine why you feel the need to grind this axe.
We know why Fauci is controversial. He is controversial because the president wanted to let people die because he felt that is the truth about the pandemic came out he would lose power. Fauci told the truth and as a result was villainized by political extremists.
This alone explains, I don't know, like 99.9% of sentiment about Fauci.
So when you spend a lot of effort trying to convince people in the internet that he lied about something, but you're unable to produce any evidence, the perception is that you have some other reason for wanting to believe he lied.
So again I encourage you to think through what the ideal response would have been. Instead of trying to find any tiny reason to criticize him, actually think through what the right thing to do was.
EDIT: To make it even more clear, by the article you quoted, 100% of the numbers he gave were within the confidence interval. That is what it means to give a "scientific evaluation" as you say.
In other words, by your own admission he never told an untruth or a partial truth. He quoted the low end of the confidence interval saying "we likely need at least this many people assuming the vaccines are this effective etc". His gut feeling was that the numbers were higher, but he didn't have the evidence to say that, so the message we "we need at least this many people."
Then as we learned more he revised the estimates up closer to where he thought they should be initially, but which he didn't have evidence for.
Since he was telling the truth 100% of the time, it's difficult to make a case that he was lying or that he is untrustworthy.
Keep in mind that if your estimate is too low many people will die or have significantly reduced life quality. And if your estimate is too high internet trolls will use that as fodder to discourage people from getting vaccinated.
You have to weigh that against the known chilling effect caused by the disinformation campaign.
You also have to include the fact that the disinformation campaign is killing people. And that it is known to be partially funded by governments specifically to shut down discourse and destabilize the US.
The alternative to debate is usually emotional manipulation such as rhetoric, advertisements, emotional art, memes, etc.
That has done most of the work in shaping people's opinions historically and even now. Force is also used, of course, but it costs more to employ.
In that context it doesn't sound as sarcastic.
But most paywall sites do display the title so that you know what great journalism you're being asked to pay for. I suspect that the typical SPA shows titles as well. So greping should work in those cases.
But my point was while title extraction is a hard problem requiring you to solve lots of corner cases, title greping is simple and handles the vast majority of cases. The corner cases are then handled by humans (as, IIUC, all cases are currently).
Accepting a user-generated title and comparing it to the text gives you a boolean. If they don't match you can just ask the user to affirm that what they submitted is really the title. Then, if you like, you can have a "this title may be dodgy" icon on posts that don't match.
From a technical perspective it's probably simpler to just grep the page for the user-submitted title.
Or in the system that runs your tests. That can itself be non-trivial.
It seems inevitable that if you order lab grown meat, many restaurants will just serve regular meat at a markup.
The less economical lab meat is, the more profitable that scam is.
I stopped reading the news several years ago. I replaced it with becoming more informed about the world. I read a lot of books about the sorts of things that pop into the news. That serves as the basis for "evergreen" knowledge about what's going on.
Once you have that, you can occasionally glance and headlines to get a diff/update.
In the context of the original comment, though, this does narrow down the market that can be addressed by a company running the Next/Apple playbook.
It seems vastly cheaper to solve these issues than to start a new company to produce its own hardware and OS.
If you did start such a company and prove there was a market, then you're making a bet that Canonical (or KDE devs) won't put you out of business.
The app may need to special case it.
On the topic of Brave New World, the site categorizes it as a Reference.
Can you be specific about who you are referring to and what your concern is?
Yup, so do humans with paper and pencil.
In any university, Chemistry is not the study of beakers nor is astronomy the study of telescopes.