2,266 karma · joined November 6, 2017
(I agree that people use the word vaguely and in a lot of different ways)
The idea is some people are genetically very low/poor methylaters so they’re methylation impaired. Generally the solution if found to be a poor methylater is to take forms of vitamins that are already methylated, like methylfolate
This sounds true if you don’t think long and hard about it, but actually the mechanics of viral spread are not quite that simple. For example there’s the phenomenom of interferon-mediated “viral interference” where infection with virus X wards off infection from virus Y (say, the influenza strain de jeur), which is thought to be attributable to acute upregulation of the innate immune system.
So, it’s not always quite so simple.
I saw many classical economist types denying that printing trillions of dollars and flagellating the global supply chain would lead to inflation. They were proven very, very wrong.
If Trump is Putin's puppet why did he publicly criticize Germany for being overly reliant on Russian pipelines for their energy needs?
You are hitting on a correct notion here though, which is that if the market totally went away - ie you held your shares but couldn't sell or buy - and you're an investor who owns .0001% of a megacorp and >50% of the shareholders won't vote to issue a dividend, then the security is worthless to you. Similarly, if the market does still exist but for whatever reason the company is "unfairly" valued extremely low by the market, then having dividends gives you an "anchor" to hold on to - at least your asset is giving you a 1% or a 3% or a [insert dividend yield here]% dividend while you wait for the market to value it fairly again - whereas without the dividend you've got nothing.
But this describes to me the "sell $1 for $.90" strategy, not the other way around. IOW I think it's an argument for why selling cheaply is often not a good idea.
And wrt the parts of your grandparent's comment you quoted, it's not really accurate to call it "growing your customer base" when you're growing it via giving away unreasonably cheap services. It is often the case that the majority of customers acquired in such a way won't stick around when prices are later increased to a realistic level.
This is why in general I advocate for businesses to price well, not cheaply, and to try to get real growth - that is, people willing to pay the money your services are actually worth. There are times where "acquire new customers at all costs, even by giving unrealistically good bargains" is the optimal strategy, but I think it should be something done 10% of the time rather than the 95% of the time it's done in our industry.
Natural immunity of an unvaccinated person is superior to a vaccinated person without natural immunity, all else equal, and the difference isn't even close. It concerns me that people still don't accept this.
See https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.24.21262415v... for conclusive proof of this. I don't have my notes on that study in front of me right now but off the top of my head natural immunity was at least 7x superior when compared to people who were double-vaccinated but with no exposure to the actual virus.
Those workers are "out of a job" because of the very COVID policies that the truckers et al are rallying against. COVID did not take away those jobs. COVID policies did.
That sentiment was echoed in this podcast I listened to the other night: https://youtu.be/H-T_EGVdYwk
The guy being interviewed is just a dude, not a leader in the movement AFAIK. But he’s probably a good representation of what the average person attending the protests wants.
That's because there is a lot of misinformation spread by stoner types that try to rationalize cannabis usage as "non-addictive". Speaking as a former stoner myself (with nothing against smoking, I just don't partake anymore).
Cannabis use can absolutely cause physical dependence. It can absolutely "cause" (be part of) psychological dependence. It can absolutely be part of a pattern of addiction. The idea that weed is "not addictive" is simply propaganda.
Now, it is true that when compared to drugs like benzodiazapenes, alcohol, and opioids, that cessation of long-term cannabis consumption causes much less severe side effects. You don't get seizures from stopping weed abruptly. But there are absolutely still withdrawal symptoms.
TL;DR: It's a myth that cannabis is a magic plant that one can't get addicted to. It's basically a cope put forward primarily by internet stoners.
I’m not going to bite on the ivermectin/ventilator stuff because it’s just completely absurd. BTW the way you used the “it’s easy to argue” construction backwards.
I don’t care for his music myself but personally I don’t agree with censorship
Some people feel that the mass asymptomatic testing serves to give perpetual fodder for sensationalist media headlines, as well as justification for public officials to impose new rounds of lockdowns, etc. As such those people believe that participating in asymptomatic testing only worsens those problems by creating "cases" in the absence of any actual clinical problem (that is to say, declaring people who are asymptomatic as COVID-19 positive even though COVID is an acronym that includes the word "disease"). They may also be against the general idea of constantly testing for the presence of a specific respiratory virus, however unique SARS-CoV-2 may be.
Better to ship the tests to the people that actually want them.
--
As an aside, you're right about "a large % of the red state population(s)", but I'd add that most "blue" people seem to think republicans are much more anti-vax / anti-test than they are. A majority of republicans are vaccinated, and a majority appear to support masking (at least indoors), or at the least are willing to begrudgingly comply. Here in California I feel like I meet a lot of people that seem to think that republicans are overwhelmingly "anti-vax" or, even more humorously, that Trump is anti-vax (humorous because his vocal praise of "boosters" and incessant bragging that he deserves credit for the vaccines and that the vaccines+lockdowns saved tens/hundreds of millions of lives, is one of his most unpopular stances with his base)
That's a description of our statist status quo :)
(2) There is certainly a middle ground between avoiding cliche bad-guy-china-vs-good-guy-america and, say, Intel removing any references to Xinjiang from its shareholder report. Or all of Hollywood carrying water for the CCP, perhaps most humorously (in a depressing way) illustrated in how they will edit movies to display the south china sea / other disputed territories in precisely the way China wants
This philosophy of viewing currency itself as subject to supply/demand is literally one of the insights that led to Friedman’s philosophy. For example see the Great Depression where an insufficient supply of money was one of the primary factors.
(See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_the_Great_Depressi...)
> can be produced only by a more rapid increase in the quantity of money than in output
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29542871
> Please don't post insinuations about astroturfing, shilling, brigading, foreign agents and the like. It degrades discussion and is usually mistaken. If you're worried about abuse, email hn@ycombinator.com and we'll look at the data.
That guideline makes sense to me. I was previously unaware of it [the guideline] but the justification is sound, doubly so because it turned out the comments were genuine* :) My apologies.
* Albeit at least one user presumably found the post via Twitter from following the author which is a little bit of a grey area
As you mentioned, I was flat-out wrong about the previews. Not sure if I scrolled straight past that section or what.
Wishing you the best with your book. And FWIW I like the bash-based approach; I agree with the philosophy of peeling away the abstraction layers.