bargl

I want to discuss what I've found out about ivermectin and why videos about it should not be flagged by an algorithm.

Ivermectin is being proposed by Dr. Kory as a preventative drug which reduces (in trials) rate of infection from COVID down to nearly zero. To that end he believes that this should be investigated as urgently or more urgently than vaccines. His reasoning is that this is a off the shelf drug that has not been disproven in any peer review so far.

To support that the NIH has changed their recommendation from

"The COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines Panel recommends against the use of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19, except in a clinical trial (AIII)."

to "The COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines Panel (the Panel) has determined that currently there are insufficient data to recommend either for or against the use of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19. Results from adequately powered, well-designed, and well-conducted clinical trials are needed to provide more specific, evidence-based guidance on the role of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19."

Which can be considered a great indicator that ivermectin is gaining steam.

So, to treat the discussion of ivermectin as if it were some fringe group's conspiracy science, is ridiculous. We've thrown billions of dollars towards finding a vaccine, which is arguably a better long term solution. Dr. Kory's point is that we should be researching this treatment as quickly as possible to save lives today and let the vaccine save lives in the future. He's been saying this since well before the vaccines were a sure thing.

I'm not saying ivermectin is going to work. I'm saying it if it does work that we moved too slow in identifying it and we had evidence that it may have worked very early on.

You actually got part of your summary wrong, he's saying it can prevent the disease from infecting individuals. So it's a preventative drug not an early treatment drug.

He was also saying it's not popular because it's a COTS drug that is widely accepted.

Now, I'm no freaking scientist, but it is FAIR to say that if this guy did his homework, found evidence of this in peer reviewed studies and is trying to present it to congress for further investigation, that is a good thing.

I'm not saying he's correct, but if there is a reasonable about of evidence that it's been overlooked and it would significantly help, then that's something we should at least do more (very urgent) research on.

If instead he's completely bunk, I'd love to see an analysis of further research proving him wrong.

But taking a video down, of a scientist posing a credible, alternative solution to waiting for a vaccine is clearly a shit thing to do.

The best solution would be to allow experts to link to and from each others videos doing a "this is wrong and here's why" style conversation. Taking information away is never a good thing imo.

https://www.drugs.com/medical-answers/ivermectin-treat-covid...

EDIT: This does not mean you should go self medicate, that's always an awful idea. Do not give yourself ay drugs that are not over the counter without consulting with a doctor. Seriously, that I have to say that is ridiculous, and I would totally understand if YouTube put something up on the video saying that too.

EDIT 2: >Our manuscript needs to be reviewed by the NIH, and they need to formulate treatment recommendations, now.

https://dryburgh.com/ivermectin-pierre-kory/

This guy has said some stuff I think is overly political, but for this disease it's worth investigating if it might help prevent infection, even if we just gave it to our front line workers.

There is absolutely something wrong with gambling when you are borrowing the money, or affecting your family.

As long as people acknowledge that gambling is a risk and put "at risk" money in, then it's fine. I don't even mind the losses people post on the sub reddit because there is a clear understanding on WSB that it's gambling. Many people over there talk about risk portfolio and exit strategies, it's not a place that encourages loss of mortgages, in general.

Also, there is a very clear difference between gambling and investing. Betting it all on a single stock is really the only thing I consider gambling in the market. Even if you don't like index funds and want to spread your money around it's all about your risk tolerance at that point. Even index funds are gambling in the short term.

You've got a bunch of gamblers over there who basically treat this as if they're going to a casino. Then someone got a lucky break and everyone there swarmed around it. Some of them got rich taking money from hedge funds.

That's where it got main stream. The main stream media is responsible for the blood in the water feeding frenzy around this. WSB subreddit went up from 2 million to 8 million in like 1 week.

Anyone who's been on the internet knows, as a community gets popular, the quality of that community changes.

Anyone who's paid any attention to the news at all, knows that the quality and depth of reporting by a lot of people is garbage and misleading.

You add that all together and if you want to know anything about this, it's easier to form your own opinion, just go to r/wallstreetbets and see what you think. I personally, don't like it, I'm not a gambler.

I'm also sure I'm wrong on some of my take in here, I'm continuing to learn and read more. For instance I was all upset at RobinHood, but they have a pretty good reason for disallowing buys. Hopefully the core of that reason gets investigated and looked at by someone, but I will state that I think there is no clear outcome I'd expect from that investigation, that's what an investigation is for. You pay someone who you can, hopefully, trust to take the time to investigate because we've also seen that crowdsourced investigation is awful.

It's just context for the conversation I was missing, it doesn't mean they are completely blameless, and I support a class action lawsuit. I just appreciate a fuller context for myself and figured others might as well.

Long story short, the clearing house (similar to when you buy a house) assesses risk and assigns terms based on that. The risk got so high that RobinHood couldn't cover it or their clearing house couldn't cover it anymore.

Whether or not the clearing houses are in bed with these brokerages remains to be seen.

I was also pitchforks out earlier today, and willing to move to webull all my stocks, but then I did more digging and this seems more reasonable. RobinHoods press release was garbage tho.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25950191

Link to the video from the OP. https://finance.yahoo.com/video/heres-why-robinhood-restrict...

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25950191

Link to the video from the OP. https://finance.yahoo.com/video/heres-why-robinhood-restrict...

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25950191

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25950191

Edit: I didn't know before listening to this how much was going on behind the scenes for every stock trade. It reminds me of what it takes to buy a house.

Don't spend your time on anything you don't want to, but if you want to learn about .NET GC then either research the author or research other deep dives into .NET GC.

To research the author you could.

Go to the About page on their blog...

You could also look them up in Stack Overflow. https://stackoverflow.com/users/2894974/konrad-kokosa

You could watch the first 10 minutes where he addresses this.

When you have a big project, you have to keep a consistent architecture. You need to keep using the same tools and patterns so that you have cohesion in your code base.

The worst thing about new architects on long lived projects is you typically get 2-4 ways of doing the same thing. If you're going to do that it needs to be so good that you don't mix and match.

If you are going to mix and match, you need to have a solid approach to splitting your dependencies, one way I'd have looked at doing this is by splitting this into multiple sub SPA applications and each mini project would be able to conform to it's own standard as long as it could interface with the glue application, this is by no means foolproof, but it gets you a lot closer to a maintainable situation from my experience.

Why I like this approach is that I saw a comment from someone saying they'd hate to be on a team with a uniform style. I completely get that, innovation is super important, but you have to build boundary layers between the different styles so you don't end up building such a hodgepodge of dependencies that you can't get things to work anymore. It also keeps your build times down and reduces time to get started working on your module.

Again same comment you made, I've made mistakes, trying to learn from them, maybe my current approach is bad too and there's a better way.

I find myself using the !g at times when I can tell that the search didn't work as well as what I've seen on Google, but it's become much less frequent.

I agree that it's become a flame war, and IMO part of the issue is that at times people promote (up/down) vote based on agreement, and at other times people vote based on promoting a good conversation.

I really want to see two voting mechanisms, an I agree woot, and another button that indicates is a well constructed argument that I think deserves conversation and views because it will promote healthy conversation. I'm not convinced people would use these appropriately, maybe they sit behind a "vote" count or you only get 5 votes a day or something, IDK.

We've gamified agreement on these platforms, and I see things swing based on who shows up. I've seen my votes swing wildly based on what I'm interpreting as someone of a particular ideology come through.

Either way we need to gamify conversation and not agreement, I don't know how to do that, but I think HN would be a great place to experiment with that idea.

If you'd commented on the substance of the person's argument instead of attacking them personally based on ideology, I think your comment would have done much better. You could have even presented evidence from the persons twitter feed on this topic and used that to further clarify their opinion and how you felt their opinion in more context was wrong.

Also, this isn't going to be effective Parler is a website, people can just browse to it in Chrome/Safari...

We should be promoting apps that encourage and promote healthy discourse between people not echo chambers, but that's what I think is morally correct.

To kind of latch onto what you said, I'd say that there is 60% of those 74 million who would have benefited from a Twitter ban which was well justified. They are more on the fence and can be persuaded by the tides of big business and what seems like an over reaction on their part. The 40% are probably hopelessly convinced of anything that Republicans say.

It was less than 100 individuals that were the impetuous for one of the worst pieces of legislation I know of. The Patriot Act. Which was voted on in a complete state of fear. Creating an extra judicial process for people who fit into a given category.

I fear the reaction to this, which I'd argue is why Twitter needed a great press release to justify banning Trump (which they can and should do as a private corporation).

EDIT: I feel like we're in a reactionary state of shock where lawmakers may try to push laws that sound good to people who are in shock and fear.

Because of the weakness of their justification, this could be further gasoline on the fire for his 74 million supporters. I frequently find myself having to argue with said supporters, and I can't argue that this justification makes sense other than to say... well they should have banned him before hand.

It feels like they were looking for almost anything remotely shitty that Trump said to ban him. More specifically, they are looking for a reason to ban him based on saying anything not in support of the next administration, because of his supporters storming the capital. I can see the chain of logic here, I just think it's a little weak and being selectively enforced.

Edited: to make more sense hopefully.

I don't argue with them to change their mind, I argue with them for the crowd of 5-6 people listening who are on the fence. All of them were just pushed off that fence.

When banning someone like donald trump you need to have a great press release for justification. You need to point to something that people who are in the middle will read and think, yeah that makes sense, I'm surprised you didn't do that earlier.

Instead, they have this PR that I honestly disagree with, even in the current climate, I don't see it.

I can only think, they wanted to ban him before he left office in order to set a precedent that they could ban him before he left office, and use that for some sort of future legal justification. I could see this as a use to ban future presidents before the 4 years are over. Or if he became president again they wouldn't have to re-instate his account.

What it does do is further back the extremists idea that they are being marginalized by big tech while others aren't. It is another step of divisiveness that leads to MORE of what just happened on Wednesday.

I'm not saying the content of Parler is at all appropriate or that people should be able to call for violence and not be punished. Violence is not the answer, but neither is further disenfranchising people and pushing us further apart.

You can't have that kind of insanity inside of a workplace and expect to secure every device. There are multiple layers of security for the congress people, and many of them were exploited. They don't practice putting on masks and running their asses out of a building. I'm sure every staffer was thinking, "Did I get everything that needs to be secured?". No they were thinking, "I'm getting the hell out of here." Especially if they weren't part of the tribe storming the castle, (aka a Democrat).

My issue with the "this is a problem because of this one thing thinking" is that we then solve for that one thing, thinking. HEY THIS WILL FIX IT, and then someone else comes and games the system after we've changed it.

This is such a complex issue, the article addresses some but not all of the issues. One is that the quality of your search is dependent on using the right keywords. Not many google users think about it like that. We think about search as if we're talking to a person, and search isn't quite there yet. The article is expecting Google to translate "can eat" to "poisonous". I swapped the word and boom.

https://pets.thenest.com/blueberries-safe-cats-8730.html

First paragraph, easy to read and understand, I didn't go any further down.

The problem is that searching by a sentence and extracting the intent of the user when using language is F-ing hard. Then you want to build something that isn't gameable with optimizations you didn't intend and when you find them you need to fix them without degrading the quality of your product.

I also want to point out that this user wants a diversity of ideas to appear on Google, while there is active pressure to sensor people who do not have the authority to speak on certain topics, or who are quoting these mom and pop blogs.

If we compare this to the real world, and take restaurants/stores. There's a McDonalds(lowes, walmart, etc) every 10 feet, but if you dive deeper you'll find the locally owned restaurant on the corner that is delicious. Can we use law to fix these issues? Yeah, we can make McDonalds every 100 miles, every 20 miles, tax them, etc. What are the side effects of our fixes and will the outcome be less desirable? I did a fair amount of driving across the country in my younger days, and what I can tell you about McDonalds is it's never amazing, but it's also never awful. I've eaten at some awful small town restaurants and I've also had some great ones.

On top of that, now I've got a kid who's got an allergy, I can tell you exactly what he can have at any fast food chain because they have an allergen menu. Not all restaurants know that information.

Err not really, if you go full swing on someone and you "intended" to stop but they block your arm and punch you in the face, arguably it's your fault. If they kill you with that punch then they would be at fault. The law around freedom is really complex. Freedom in the US isn't limited, it's complicated.

When American's use the word freedom most of them are being dumb. You do have freedoms that are protected, but that doesn't mean what you think is a freedom actually is a freedom.

I'm also going to pick on your example of the restaurant. The staff at a restaurant does get to choose to be there or not, that's a free economy. If the government shuts down restaurants, like they have in some states, then the staff can no longer choose to take on that risk. Everyone gets to choose, but there is also an obligation/responsibility with freedom that people in the USA don't seem to "get".

You are FREE to get a gun, you are then responsible for using it wisely. Lock it up, get trained with it, be safe, and learn when to pull it out. The jerks on CNN who had the rifle and were pointing it at the crowd are a great example of irresponsibility with freedom. They should have never, EVER pointed a gun at someone who did not pose an imminent threat to their person. Back to the punching example, everyone who sees a fake punch can judge HOW fake it was. Did they stop at the nose, did they just jerk their arm, did they go Suuuppppeeerrrrr slow. Those judgements matter in court to show that the person who fought back was being reasonable. The burden of reasonable action is even higher with a knife/gun.

Take free speech for example, you can actually sign away your right to free speech in a contract. There is a commedian who talks about things that are illegal to say. Free speech applies to the press, not to individuals being ass hats.

Anyway, all of that is me saying, freedom in the USA is a slogan, which is dumb. Meme's do not present great arguments, but the freedoms we do have are as well defined under the law as most place. People just don't know them.

The idea that we are a pure free market is as absurd as saying that china is pure communism. There is no pure government out there that meets the academic definition of the market they espouse. It's just not possible, never has been, never will be (I usually don't speak in absolutes but feel pretty 99.999% comfortable with this statement). There will always be gray outside the academic setting.