dbsights

Come on, the choice isn't just between conservation and blackouts.. This is only an issue because we sacrificed the reliability of the power grid for 'green' technologies.

Forget enforced conservation or blackouts, I choose a reliable power grid, obviously, and that means ditching worthless renewables and building out proven technology.

Russia is very different from Italy, they have local production of almost all goods. I think you're right that a western country that was cut off like Russia would have failed as you predict. That Russia hasn't should tell you that your understanding of their situation is wrong. I think we'll really see that this winter.

.. and your dick. Raising NO is the mechanism of action for Viagra.

Same reason we should have had a problem with it then.

If racism is wrong, then it shouldn't matter which race.

What about his post was hostile?

Your post, a baseless attack, is hostile.

Looks like those buyers are reconsidering it's value too.

HODL? Illogical unless you believe there is some underlying value. Otherwise there will be bagholders and all you've accomplished is to guarantee you'll be among them.

I'll admit I got to the same phrase and violently closed the tab. Something about newspeak revolts me, once I see the "message" promulgated, I just cant take the author seriously anymore.

Come on, this isn't true. Even with delta the waning efficacy had become obvious in those countries that vaccinated early, with all time high infections in jurisdictions that were virtually completely vaccinated (e.g. Israel, Waterford). One study estimated 211 days until protection vs infection was statistically indistinguishable from someone who was not vaccinated (https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3949410).

And how can you possibly speculate that a vaccine evasive mutation is the fault of the unvaccinated? While we can only guess, the evolutionary pressure is obvious: a vast number of hosts available to the first variant that can defeat the narrow immunity against the spike protein. We created a monoculture, with all the attendant risks.

>Again, note the juxtaposition. These 477 patients who reported COVID-19 symptoms but never received nasal swabs were across the entire trial of well over 40,000 subjects, but the way it’s phrased, not put into context of the size of the entire trial, makes this sound like a huge number

477 untested patients is absolutely a huge number in the context of this trial: only 170 symptomatic infection were confirmed over the entire trial (the only endpoint). Even if the missed positives were evenly distributed between the two arms of the trial, the relative efficacy would be skewed by the additional cases.

For example, if we assume all of the untested people were actually positive (not unreasonable, they were symptomatic), the reported efficacy would drop by ~30%: instead of 8 confirmed cases in the vax arm vs 162 in the control arm (95.2%), it would become 218 vs. 429 (66.3%). Not a trivial difference.

I can't believe natural immunity was ever in doubt. Is there a single disease for which natural immunity is not superior to acquired (via vaccine) immunity? I can't find one.

"Agree with me or you're guilty too". Those challenges were defeated on procedural grounds, not because of a lack of evidence. The investigations of the 2016 election were started for less.

You're begging the question by calling it a "free and fair election". The dissent is whether that is actually the case. And if it is not, then the eradication of that dissent is terrifying.

>We detected coronavirus in respiratory droplets and aerosols in 3 of 10 (30%) and 4 of 10 (40%) of the samples collected without face masks, respectively, but did not detect any virus in respiratory droplets or aerosols collected from participants wearing face masks, this difference was significant in aerosols and showed a trend toward reduced detection in respiratory droplets (Table 1b).

This study is incredibly small, and operating on the limits of significance. Its hardly conclusive, and was done under fairly extreme conditions (30 mins in close proximity) compared to the scenarios in which masks are mandated today. The authors even mention that, for those who did not cough, no detectable virus was identified regardless of whether a mask was worn. Considering that the point of mandatory masking is to prevent asymptomatic transmission from brief interactions with strangers, I just don't find this study very convincing as a scientific basis for a mask mandate.

This is not taking advantage of a disaster (taking advantage of people's suffering), this is supply and demand. Supposedly, Tesla's are in high demand and as a 'luxury' good they could charge as much as they wished without consequence to their reputation. Indeed, it may even increase the desirability of their cars. Which begs the question, why haven't they? Instead, they've consistently slashed prices..

It's too easy to confuse ideas and provably false statements. Many things we hold to be absolutely true may not be so, this has happened with many 'truths' through history, and it would be incredibly arrogant to believe that today there are none of those in the public consciousness.

That's the danger in censorship, it starts with the best of intentions, to protect people from being misled by obviously wrong facts, but inevitably the opinions of the censors are confused with fact.

This is the reason I can't stand zig: its so aggressively opinionated about something that doesn't matter at all.

Except stocks and bonds are correlated now. So that strategy just, doesn't work any more

about 99.7%?

I've always hated the argument of this book: yes the markets are chaotic and short term movements appear random, but the appearance of being random is not equivalent to being caused by a random process. The book makes a big deal about how technical analysts saw patterns in random data so it must be bunk, but this doesn't really say anything about the predictive power of technical analysis when the data is generated by the aggregate actions of thousands of traders instead of a coin toss.

Price action is not the result of investors literally buying or selling at random. Each action is undertaken in response to external conditions and it is far from absurd to believe that patterns can exist in the price.

All trades are zero-sum. For any price change in a stock, the money made by one party is equal to the money that could have been made by the other. Given the choice to either buy now or buy later, if the price appreciates, buying later is a loss and if it falls, it is a gain.

So in your example with the biotech stock, the person who loses the corresponding $100 is whoever sold it to you prior to the news event. If they had not made that trade, they would be $100 ahead, and if you had not made the trade, you would be $100 behind. Every transaction has a winner and a loser when considered over a period of time.