Thanks!
262 karma · joined August 25, 2010
hnchat.com:f7X20VDdBIG15KJNH7Ih
different cultural groups also behave differently and make different choices based on familial affinities & social incentives
We want to blame these highly-capitalized cults of personality for our human cultish tendencies — often exacerbated by chatterers who are incentivized by media access to cult leaders (that lead to clicks and views).
But the truth is most people are unwilling to make tradeoffs that favor principle over convenience & security. So it’s very hard to take them seriously when they cry for the Nanny State or the collective shaming mobs to bend the world to their will.
Liberty and innovation become ossified when people defer moral action to some regulatory authority or mob collective.
Median age for the control group and test group was 24yrs and 18yrs respectively. This isn't the ideal sample group for testing this drug for COVID-19 indication.
But more importantly... Dosing was only 400mg once per day versus recommended 500mg twice per day as performed in the French trial.
Taken together, this trial tells us very little on how this drug would perform at proper dosing on severe subjects in vulnerable age range and/or with prior co-morbidities.
“This virus is not circulating in the community, even in the highest incidence areas across China,” Van Kerkhove insisted.
What’s the difference between spread among close contacts and community spread, you might wonder? Van Kerkhove said the data the mission saw in China pointed to the virus finding its way into households and transmitting there. One family member gets infected and infects others. The “secondary attack rate” — the percentage of people in a household who got infected after someone brought the virus into the home — was between 3% and 10%.
Van Kerkhove said true community spread involves transmission where people get infected in a movie theater, on the subway, or walking down the street. There’s no way to trace back the source of infection because there’s no connection between the infected person and the person he or she infects. That’s not what the Chinese data show, she said.
Marc Lipsitch, an infectious diseases epidemiologist at the Harvard School of Public Health, found this claim puzzling. “I have reached out to the World Health Organization to understand the basis of some of those statements. My perception is that there is significant community transmission, especially when you aren’t aware that someone is sick, because there’s not enough testing,” he said.
https://www.statnews.com/2020/03/06/were-learning-a-lot-abou...
She retired in 2012: https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1998-jul-23-me-6344-...
Also, that document suggest that this former sheriff was a co-defendant in that appeals case: https://tonyortega.org/2017/04/30/as-former-los-angeles-sher...
And on top of all that, Twitter's own editorial team regularly stokes political/cultural controversy by boosting non-issues in Twitter Moments and Trending topics.
But then so would the engagement and ad revenue.
https://tradingeconomics.com/united-kingdom/government-debt-...
+ password or SSO protection for access to the app's data (use Kerberos/AD SSO for credentials?)
+ an end-user controlled encrypted store for the data & screenshots (FUSE/WinFSP?)
+ a daily local push/popup notification displayed to the logged-in user with... a) app status b) data summary c) a quick action to toggle the background recording service on/off
Just my $.02. Cheers!
The discourse does tend to quickly descend into defensiveness & assumptions of bad faith. For my part, I hope to do better the next time around. Cheers.
I prefer to use "social justice advocates" - I used "crowd" here but there was no ill intent.
And if I didn't apologize earlier for making assumptions about your views, I'm apologizing right now. I'd rather learn what you truly think than insist a caricature upon you. It's the only way to have an honest conservation, I think.
2. Whatever.
3. MW dictionary shows no such definition of privilege. Is it in wide use? Link?
Of course, I agree there's such a thing as "discrimination". When we make value judgements, we discriminate. You like blue better than red? That's discrimination. You like people with hazel eyes best? Discrimination. You like your family better than strangers? Yup - discrimination.
In the context of this thread. racial discrimination is to favor a race (positive discrimination) or devalue another race (negative discrimination).
And FWIW, I begrudgingly accept that the contemporary definition of racism is a superset that includes racial discrimination, racial prejudice, and racial antagonism.
I say begrudgingly because this wasn't the case 20-30 years ago. The words "racism" and "racist" were reserved for the most vile organizations or individuals that actively sought to discriminate/disenfranchise/injure people on the basis of their race or ethnicity. The word "prejudiced" was used to describe thoughtless or inadvertent discriminatory attitudes. The word "bigot" was reserved for people who hurled racial/ethnic epithets and found self-satisfaction from putting/keeping down people based on their race/ethnicity.
So you see - back then people used discrimination to sort these trespasses into a value hierarchy: the prejudiced person was annoying but okay, the bigot was an intolerable asshole, and the racist was vile and physically dangerous scum.
And with regards to "dismissive name-calling" - I wasn't aware that "social justice crowd" was a pejorative. If there's a better moniker that represents the broader set of ideas I'd be pleased to know and use it.
As for your claim that you're engaged in "other meaningful discourse" and that I'm "merely regurgitating my own narrative", I'd invite you to notice that your ad hominem attacks are not arguments.
Would you mind clarifying the distinction between "differentially enfranchised groups" and "race == power" ?
They're the generally accepted definitions.
The definitions you are presenting are therefore ideological at best.