I think it is easy to argue that the Chinese govt exerts pressure in "unique ways" - see Jack Ma's 180 in attitude after house arrest. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Ma#During_tech_crackdown
Is there one CEO in the US or UK with a similar story?
1,973 karma · joined February 18, 2011
Is there one CEO in the US or UK with a similar story?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism
Please don't engage in whataboutism. One should be able to criticize China's actions without calling into discussion actions of other nations.
Do you go about threads criticizing US govt actions drawing parallels to similar actions in other regimes like China or Russia?
Why did it quickly grow?
Do the republics in the Caucasus region (and Russia) count in this calculation or not?
Do you think the protests leading to escalations were done simply? Or BECAUSE of the awful implementation? (Masks, no IDs, no accountability, no body cameras, etc.)
If it is the latter, then isn't the blame to be placed squarely on the original enforcement philosophy?
Otherwise it reads like DARVO tactics. If we were talking about a relationship it sounds like -- Person A emotionally abuses Person B to the point of person B pushing back, and then Person A using the fact that Person B reacted (perhaps adversely) as justification for even more emotional abuse.
If the premise is that folks crossed over the unprotected Southern border, Maine is basically about as far as one can get while still remaining in the contiguous 48.
We had billions of COVID shots. Even if there was a weak correlation with 1% of the people going on to get rapidly worsening cancer we'd be seeing cancer spikes everywhere. Do we have anything remotely close to that in real life?
Why'd you call him Clott Adams?
I don't see subtlety here. As others pointed, the story of human civilization is one long arc of going against our base animal instincts in order to build a society that benefits everyone.
I think most people come to HN assuming folks are discussing their viewpoints in good faith with both an honesty of thought and the willingness to listen to opposing viewpoints. You've shown neither.
I looked up that article. Nowhere does it indicate that papers like the NYT were opposed to speeding up the development, approval, and distribution of vaccines.
Are you implying that if it were Democrats in the white house we would've had protracted approval?
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/04/opinion/coronavirus-vacci...
==
Vaccines often take 10 years to bring to market. We want a new vaccine as fast as possible, where each month matters.
The fact is that starting from the early stages of development, most vaccines fail. We cannot afford to fail, so we need to plan for success. To do that, we must think and invest as ambitiously as we can — and that means in a Covid vaccine advance market commitment.
Would you be saying the same thing if you HAD a valid Vietnamese tourist visa and was snatched off the road and detained for several hours without access to a lawyer in terrible conditions by unbadged masked "agents"?
https://abcnews.go.com/US/lawyer-us-born-citizen-detained-ic...
If they are the best and brightest of the world and typically stay back and contribute significantly above the median employee to US industry or even start their own companies, why is it framed in such a negative way?
What are ways in which we can incentivize investments and place societal guardrails so that something similar doesn't happen with AI data centers.
Do governments need to invest in nuclear power?
Scale up energy generation in other ways through renewables?
Insulate or subsidize the average non-corporate electricity consumer through something like rent control?
> Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.
If you believe vaccines are a good thing, generally speaking, you want to incentivize production. You also make it sound like there are no remedies. I don't think that is the case at least from this sentence. Do you disagree?
> However, a plaintiff may file a civil court claim against vaccine companies after filing a claim in the VICP if they reject the vaccine court's decision.
This doesn't condone violence but offers context as to how he would've assessed a similar situation if he weren't the target.
If a simplistic definition of political violence is targeted killings of political leaders, then this is trivially false. Look at Europe, Australia and other countries with comparable statistics to US and look at the number of events you'd classify as political violence. It is likely zero. The only person I can think of from recent memory is Shinzo Abe.
In the US alone, thanks to no gun control, we have attempts at Presidential candidates, and successful killings of state-level law makers, CEOs, and now, political influencers.
I hear this point cited and I googled it and it took me like 3 seconds to get this answer: https://www.chop.edu/vaccine-education-center/science-histor...
Also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Childhood_Vaccine_Inj...
Seems like a reasonable answer to me! The question is, why don't vaccine skeptics just look things up and try to educate themselves?
===
Why are vaccine manufacturers shielded from liability? A 1982 TV news report entitled Vaccine Roulette suggested that the whole-cell pertussis vaccine was the cause of permanent brain injury. Subsequent studies indicated that while the whole-cell vaccine was associated with febrile seizures, it was not associated with long-term brain damage. However, those studies took at least 10 years to exonerate the vaccine.
In the meantime, as vaccine manufacturers were flooded with lawsuits, some decided to stop making vaccines rather than face continued legal pressures. Consequently, production dropped, leading to concerns about vaccine supply and subsequent vaccination rates.
By shielding vaccine manufacturers from liability, Congress assured that future generations would be protected from devastating diseases. A common misconception is that this process completely shields vaccine makers. However, a plaintiff may file a civil court claim against vaccine companies after filing a claim in the VICP if they reject the vaccine court's decision.
Folks can surely see the connection between dropping vaccination rates and the rise of measles in Texas for example. Why aren't more people outraged and how are they allowing unprincipled politicians to impact their lives so drastically in pursuit of power?
What's worse - Kim Davis's personal life doesn't read like someone who "respects traditional marriage". From wikipedia:
> Davis has been married four times to three husbands. The first three marriages ended in divorce in 1994, 2006, and 2008. Davis has two daughters from her first marriage and twins, a son and another daughter, who were born five months after her divorce from her first husband. Her third husband is the biological father of the twins, the children being conceived while Davis was still married to her first husband.
This is a concerted effort to test what the new SCOTUS is going to grant the new "in group" in this country in terms of laws that bind the "out group" which in this case is the gay community.