argvargc

This somehow inspired me to type "google destroyed" into HN search.

Didn't disappoint.

And when activists are scientists?

Or what about when activists just pay attention to, read and understand science?

That, in general, seems to be something rather common - emergent science is often what motivates activists, especially regarding safety.

Actually, much science itself could be considered an ongoing process of a kind of "activism".

As a sibling suggested, if something plausible and potentially harmful hasn't been studied enough to rule it out; study it.

Here's a 20-year Professor of Ethics take on it:

https://odysee.com/@percep7ioneer:e/Julie-Ponesse-Ethics-Pro...

I legitimately cannot tell if this is a line from a TV commercial.

It's exactly how fractional reserve works. That it can happen more than once due to redepositing (in other banks, and so on...) doesn't help an argument against that reality.

You may have missed the memo that went out in 2008 regarding how banks like to do things in general. A kind of "statement" regarding their ethics and base principles.

The inventor of Bitcoin didn't miss it, and created a slightly better system that was at least based on something: pointlessly throwing energy away.

Did quite well at proving the concept, it's worth trillions at the moment. So it seems to work. In fact, those old banks might want to start up their own. You know, to compete.

Ah, the exciting world of finance.

Is this just number of deaths without population context? If so, it's falsely accumulating. Probably not a huge deal given the period and growth rate, but still, not hard to adjust.

USA population growth is about 0.6%/year. Adjust total population on a per month basis and show the deaths per population instead of the total deaths.

Would love to see a bunch of age-stratified versions.

Why is Gnome the reason people don't stay on linux?

The article makes it look great to anyone familiar with macOS, which while it has faults is generally regarded as a pretty good OS GUI.

Is there something bad about Gnome the article is missing?

Genuine question:

By "tinkering" do you mean every once in a while something really important completely stops working and you have to pull your hair out in the middle of some important work in order to get that thing fixed so you can use your computer properly again, which usually involves a series of incomprehensible steps you found on the 17th page of a phpBB forum thread?

Or...?

Because, that being one primary reason many people choose macOS over Windows, it would really suck.

Asking because the article was interesting, Gnome looked great, and it'd be genuinely fantastic if this assumption on my part was wrong.

It feels like there could be a way to automagically solve collation as part of decentralising the storage. If there were deterministic way to create the decentralised hash for example, and then it could simply attempt to load it before committing it on fail. The user could be provided a constant heads up on side chain synch.

Have never run a nitter server, so maybe this is not possible - but could one be included as part of a web client? Ie, user surfs to "twinitter.com", receives a nitter server that takes their twitter credentials and starts posting their activity to the new chain and optionally to twitter also. If the user supplies no credentials, the server would simply run like a user-led crawler, adding more data to the new chain in what could be presumed to be some kind of optimum fashion, as it would always be the content users of the dual chains were interested in.

This is the first time I've seen a reasonably full-featured encryption suite that doesn't require hours of investment to make full use of it.

I liked the considerate UI touches too, such as automated pass-phrase generation on hitting return.

I wonder if there could be a sweet-spot of people with a bit of technical knowledge and a need for encryption beyond GUI apps, but not so much of either to make a big time investment that other command-line tools often require.

Small criticism - and it might just be me, but the perspective alternation here had me reading this part three times:

"You can use hybrid encryption to send an encrypted file to someone else. Note that this is one-way encryption. The sender cannot decrypt the file. This means that you should not overwrite the original file."

Maybe change "the sender cannot..." to something like "You cannot decrypt the file, only the recipient can, using their private key."?

(From: https://www.kryptor.co.uk/tutorial )

Could this be used as a base to fork the existing ecosystem away from centralised control and back to its users? Say using decentralised storage and a synched side chain?

Because it stayed up long enough for you to see it.

How then would you explain that this has never happened here?

The context was treatments for COVID, and you brought up only one of the least studied and least likely effective of the studied treatments you could have mentioned. Misinformed.

You're completely misinformed.

There have been hundreds of peer-reviewed RCT's in vivo, in live human COVID-infected patients of many differing treatments for COVID, several of which have demonstrated high efficacy in reducing hospitalisation and death as both prophylaxis and treatment.

https://c19early.com/

Governments the world over have made repeated, clear statements that if someone tests positive for COVID, and then dies within 28 days for any reason, the death is counted as a COVID death.

That is the end of any validity in test-derived deaths data.

I am sourcing my opinion exclusively from published, peer-reviewed science in well-established journals. If you are not aware of any of it, as it appears you just admitted, you are not a sufficiently qualified researcher and should refrain from comment.

In pandemics, you isolate only the sick, treat them, and offer prophylaxis to vulnerable groups.

In COVID, we isolated everyone, sick and healthy (utterly unprecedented), then flooded the most vulnerable with sick people (bizarre care home mismanagement), and refused to give treatment or prophylaxis to anyone until they couldn't breathe, at which point they were put on a ventilator.

In some places, that's still the protocol. Others have learned from these mistakes and moved on.

When everyone has, COVID will cease to be a problem.

The original approach has worked for every other novel virus pandemic we've had - which happen regularly every few years. Even the very same people at Imperial College made similarly dire predictions for some of those pandemics at the time - and yet none registered more than a fraction of a flu season.

That original protocol, used repeatedly for years, was abandoned and effectively reversed for COVID, with ongoing disastrous results as anyone can plainly see.

Presently, no one can post certain peer-reviewed science from well-known and respected medical journals on any social media account, or speak of them on YT, because of widespread censorship of certain topics.

It's not possible to have anything remotely resembling a "debate" in such a climate.

Mandates have not been effective. Nothing that's been done can be said to have been "effective". We are apparently in an even worse place now, even with vaccines, than we were last year.

In reality though, we aren't.

The pathology of the virus is well-understood, as are the mechanisms to defeat it. But we're not allowed to talk about it.

It'd all be over in weeks if we were - as we saw in India recently, in all provinces but the one that stuck with the dogma.

The facebook posts typically reference one of several organised groups of hundreds of working doctors, some of whom claim to have directly observed high levels of concerningly-serious adverse reaction, even among small sample groups (eg, small town doctors who vaccinated many in the town).

If a doctor is recommending you don't take it based on their experience and expertise, it carries a bit more weight than "something you read on facebook". And if you can't trust doctors now, who may even be your own doctor, why would you trust anyone else, or "some other doctor"?

This is not something that can be resolved by bullying or mandates. It can only be resolved by open dialogue and debate between the two sides, which thus far, has been prevented.

Censorship and stifling of debate only hardens the opinions of either side.

It also makes no sense - many areas have massive resistance, no matter what has been thrown at them - proving the fear of "if we let them talk freely they'll influence others and go off and do whatever they want!" isn't founded. Basic human psychology, along with experience, shows the reverse has proven true.

If you stop people who are suspicious of something from being able to talk about what they're suspicious of, they get even more suspicious of it.

Certainly, there is no other time in history widespread censorship has resulted in anything other than widespread division, suspicion and ultimately, violence.

If employers mandate based on this approval, it will likely just result in mass walk-outs.

Minds are not won by force.

Sweden and UK saw an almost identical death curve per million despite diametrically-opposed policy decisions.

Gibraltar had almost no COVID, vaccinated literally everyone and then had a massive (and ongoing) outbreak.

We can go back and forth for hours with many examples proving and countering each factoid of the "narrative" - and only make my point; it's an inconclusive mess.

Rigid adherence to the prevailing dogma is clearly foolish in such a situation.

As for deaths, if you really want to argue about it, you need to exclude the "died within 28 days of a positive test"'s, the ridiculously-ignored co-morbidities, and the "cases" that resulted in death that were based on RT-PCR's at cycle thresholds above 35, obviously. Those coronavirus "high score table" sites don't do that nor bother to account for any of many subtleties in reporting that can and do have major impact on results.

Good luck trying to figure any of it out then. But hey, don't let that stop you entertaining a false adamancy - I'm sure it feels just great.

Using Ioannidis and others you can make some attempt using seroprevalence studies if you're really interested, suffice to say it's just generally much, much less overall than the SAGE-induced nonsense, you've undoubtedly succumbed to, would have you believe.

Finally, as now hundreds of peer-reviewed RCT's worldwide have shown, it's now one of the most treatable illnesses out there, if you bother to understand its mechanism of cell infection and how to inhibit that, instead of not doing anything to help and then putting people on a 25%-survival-rate ventilator, which thus far has been the most common response.

The problem is not scientific or medical anymore, its political and social. The science and medicine has been worked out for months now.

Well that comparison might make sense if the masks were made of latex.

I doubt it. Pandemic preparedness, including for airborne diseases, was the same for decades until it was all thrown out the window to do something wildly different that had never been done before.

Which - evidently, as we're still having "lockdowns" and "resurgences" 1.5 years after that "two weeks to flatten the curve" experiment - didn't work.

Not really, at the rate death is declining overall COVID will almost certainly kill far fewer in the same timeframe.

And given differences in policy, and differences in resistance to them have not resulted in any discernible difference in result (ie, it's wild mess that makes no sense and more typically returns results opposite to expectation), it largely appears this would have been the case had we not ruined everything over it.

Well worth the click, the article (1997) starts with a great explainer, and has photos.

Deserves its own post.

Wow, thank you.

In a brief search, I found this strange and interesting article from 1983, regarding experiments conducted at Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory of the University of California:

https://www.nytimes.com/1983/02/22/science/do-enormous-magne...

TL;DR - there were detectable effects on heart function, eye function and possibly sense of direction. The effects were deemed safe at the levels studied.

Here is the study the article appears to be about (on page 86, as numbered in the scan):

https://inis.iaea.org/collection/NCLCollectionStore/_Public/...

Going by its closing remarks, it appears this was an active field of research at the time.

Where are the boundaries though? Are they established?

There must be a point at which a magnet of power n causes a negative effect that increases along with n, time, and exponentially with proximity?

The heart itself is kind of an electromagnetic device - are there any studies on the health implications in healthy people of having powerful magnets placed next to it?

In reality, 99.9% of all people who don't understand this issue don't care at all about Apple doing this.

It's similar to pointing out that 99.9% of all people don't care about enabling robust, non-SMS-based 2FA on their bank account.

This speaks of a lack of knowledge about an important issue. It does not degrade the importance of the issue.

Beware state *** of your *** - governments can change for the worse

No, the attacker is committing a crime with the attack you describe, but has plausible deniability that they are not with the Apple-nonsense enabled attack vector.

This is a huge difference as not only does Apple facilitate a gain-of-function in terms of potential detriment to the victim of an attack, the newly-enabled vector also indemnifies the attacker.

The effort required to come up with a hash collision in SHA256 is something on the order of the power output of a trillion suns for a billion years (or some other meaninglessly-prohibitively-large amount). Despite such metrics and off-the-shelf solutions being readily attainable within this field Apple has implemented a system that has resulted in a collision within days, followed by a free automated collision generation tool.

This demonstrates absolute gross incompetence in design, and permanently eliminates any trust any sensible individual can ever have in the system despite your protestations.

There is simply nothing you can say to convince any sane person otherwise, the situation has been factually described and it is what it is.