aantthony

You mentioned "how Italy got overrun", so I was talking about the timeframe that you brought up. I'm not trying to change the subject.

Youtube is responsible for the harm here IMO. The video is long and boring. If it wasn't being censored, nobody would care to pay any attention to it.

Yeah I agree that is very dangerous, although that is exactly what governments and most TV channels were saying at the time.

There's a very strong aversion towards anyone with different views on this subject. I'm not convinced its solely due to a lack of data. Low sample size studies have been around for a while, but the aversion on this is so much stronger, and has an effect. In China, it's explicit. If you say there's human-to-human transmission, the police will arrest you. If you research the origins of the virus, it's illegal to publish that. In the rest of the world you're allowed to express such views, but there's a very strong chilling effect (and on social media its banned if it contradicts the W.H.O.). An example of the chilling effect would be when scientists arguing for masks had to do their work in secret: https://twitter.com/jeremyphoward/status/1244038605078757376

From Wikipedia: “In the U.S., Verizon is using 28 GHz and AT&T is using 39 GHz. 5G can use frequencies of up to 300 GHz”[1]. That is high frequency relative to the frequencies of 4G, and WiFI or Bluetooth which are around 2-4 GHz.[2]

Not sure what definition of radiation you’re using, but yes, electromagnetic waves are radiation.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5G [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wi-Fi

I think most people tend to have an innate need for answers and don’t like having unknowns. The institutions used to fill that gap, but now it’s back since the institutions violated that trust. Educated people are still able to find other means for sense-making such as finding good sources, considering multiple opinions etc. But for everyone else, it seems they’re left with the strategy to just trust whatever they see that hasn’t previously lied to them.

Could you share that information, if you don’t mind. I was trying to figure out if the radiation is safe but I couldn’t find anything on the effects of the high frequency signals.

Is there any reason to believe the dangers of the presumed misinformation being censored are actually significant? Is it killing more people than the Tide pod challenge for example? The article mentions taking vitamin C, and turmeric, but that just seems harmless to me. If it was just that, it’s clearly not worth banning the masks or origin discussion.

I think there is a big difference between content moderation (based on published and reasonably objective rules) and an outright ban on contradicting the stance of an organisation that is highly political.

If this rule was implemented earlier, you’d be banned for saying there is human-to-human transmission, proposing flight restrictions, or advocating for the general public to use masks. The W.H.O. has explicitly advised against each of those measures, despite significant disagreement on every one of those claims. It’s absurd that dissenting against the W.H.O. has been banned, although it’s predictable of course.

It's not just Youtube, it's also Twitter[1] and Facebook[2]. When they all act in concert with each other, it's much harder to hold them accountable.

I think censorship can be dangerous in this context so I'm working on a decentralised fact-checker. I think it could be a more constructive solution to fake news that isn't subject to these problems: https://blog.verifact.io/2020/04/20/A-decentralised-fact-che...

[1] https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2020/covid-19....

[2] https://nypost.com/2020/04/17/facebook-fact-checkers-foul-ag...

Law should be objectively decidable. Thousands upon thousands of pages of enigmatic legalistic nonsense make it impossible to predict a legal decision. When there is this much law, it becomes a paradox where the result is actually lawless - it becomes the whim of a judge's interpretation.

Haven’t heard if that’s going ahead.

But I’m working on a similar concept: https://verifact.io which will be launching soon

It's not about the existing evidence it's about the lack thereof, and thus it must be considered as a possibility. To do otherwise is an extremely dangerous assumption. It's valid point and I don't see that as scaremongering.

I'm not an expert but I found this preprint: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.02.12.20022418v...

I have no problem with stating undisputed facts. The point is the claim about Trump is portrayed as undisputed, when it clearly is disputed. So if someone said "It is undeniable that the Earth is flat and anyone who supports the idea of spherical Earth is evil" then yes I'd say that person is stuck in a mindset and unwilling to consider alternatives.

Those arguments you copied are for different claims and were made by a different person.

When they say "Support of the Trump administration is undeniably support for white supremacy" as if it were an undisputed fact, and without any argument at all, it really shows how they're incapable of considering an alternative worldview. To an ideologically enslaved mind it literally cannot be denied.

It seems the AirPods do this. It will delay the video so that it’s in sync. It might already be in the protocol.

"If this is just a learned relationship between things, the order of the adjectives shouldn't matter"

Why not? Couldn't the order also be a learned relationship?

"NPR, along with the NAB, has been part of a lobbying effort to require this free radio feature to be enabled."

I don't want an FM radio on my phone because the internet is a superior system 99% of the time. If Apple doesn't want to make an FM radio then they shouldn't have to. It should be the people creating technology who decide the features, not lobbyists using threats of force through government based on clearly biased political interests.

I've been using Safari without flash for a while now, and it used to be like that, but lately it's been extremely rare to find any which aren't html5 compatible.

It wasn't mentioned in the article, but Galt's Gulch Chile was founded by Jeff Berwick the tech entrepreneur who co-founded the Bitcoin ATM project, and also stockhouse.com in the 90's.

Yep, I'm changing it to equation.io as soon as I get the new one working.

I think these are done in bursts specifically to cause lag. Nobody would bother to buy 0.1 BTC in 100 separate orders at the same price. Often the orders are cancelled anyway.

Doesn't 'arms' include both the weapons and ammunition though?

Seems they have posted it for other states also: https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petitions

It only depends on your definition, which will always end up being twisted for political purposes anyway.

I would say a free market is one without coercion, and capitalism is when private property rights over the means of production are well respected. But many others would alter this, such as saying that it requires a government money supply etc, which I think is not part of an appropriate definition. Not a meaningful discussion really.

Nice, but I find Wolfram Alpha faster and easier to use:

http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=12%3A30pm+PT

Also, in the "Technical troubleshooting" page (http://help.abr.gov.au/content.asp?sid=42&doc=/content/1...) Problem: "Screen not displaying properly", Solution: Your display is not set to 800 x 600 pixels. Haha.

What's even more pathetic is that the page also talks about using OS X Lion even though it still displays that message!

Does anyone else think that this is just convoluted and confusing?

The right to keep and bear arms is also similar. That right doesn't entitle you to free guns.

I get an alert in Safari on Mac: 'Floatbox does not support quirks mode. Page needs to have a valid doctype declaration.'