dotcommand

There has been a move toward boosting 'authoritative sources' in the tech industry the past few years. Of course after intense pressure from the 'authoritative sources' demanding preferential treatment on tech platforms.

This is a blog from the ceo of youtube, but it isn't just youtube. It's a priority of alphabet, the parent company of youtube, google, etc and all major tech/social media companies - apple, facebook, reddit, etc.

https://blog.youtube/inside-youtube/the-four-rs-of-responsib...

What local news source is more 'authoritative' than the NYT, WSJ, NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, Fox News, etc? When the george floyd incident happened, what sources were you presented with on tech platforms? Local news from minnesota or NYT, CNN, BBC, Sky News, etc?

Same here. But sadly the title would have been 'Google purchases "The Mermaid" for $X'... Given their near $2 trillion market cap, I doubt any search engine would be allowed to stay hot for too long.

> Don't call it the flu. It's not the flu.

The original commenter didn't call it the flu as far as I can tell. He wrote: "Is there some reason to expect that covid-19 is different in long term effects than a flu? This study is saying it causes substantial brain damage, right? What possible mechanism is there for this?".

Nowhere did he call it the flu.

> It's killed 20x more people than the flu even in the fact of pervasive society-changing mitigation strategies (all while the flu itself has all but gone extinct, remember! All that masking and distance learning actually worked!).

No. It killed 20x more people than the flu in 2020 to now. But the flu has killed far more people overall. The flu epidemic of 1918 killed 50 million people, far more than covid.

https://www.cdc.gov/flu/pandemic-resources/reconstruction-19...

> Beyond that, nitpick with my phrasing all you like. This is HN, after all.

It's not the phrasing, you know that. You outright contradicted the CDC which makes your comment misinformation.

> It's not the flu.

In your zeal, you falsely attributed a statement/argument to a person and argued against it. In one of my philosophy classes, I learned that it was called building a straw man. It's a logical fallacy.

Your heart may be in the right place, but you aren't helping. Though I'm starting to believe the fanatics on both sides deep down want covid to ravage the world and that neither side has their heart in the right place.

> But I'm not talking about infants. I'm talking about people in general.

You specifically responded to my comment which was a response to "I think people have an instinct for enriching their genome...". INSTINCT. Something that's INBORN, not cultural. That's what I specifically responded to. You are being dishonest here.

> Yeah he was wrong about that. But you overcorrected.

Overcorrected? Oh give me a break.

> Let me put this by itself. Really simple logic... But only 75% of their children have brown eyes.

I'm so glad you caught on. So you do know a little bit about statistics. So now I know all your misleading replies are not based on ignorance but agenda. Now ask yourself, in your non-biased random world, which produces 75% brown eyes and 25% blue eyes, how some countries have nearly 90% blue eyes or over 50% blue eyes? Your logic proves that in the real world, there was a bias. I won't even bother with how a recessive mutation in a 99.99% brown-eyed world ( 8000 years or so ago ) can survive without some selection bias to begin with.

https://www.livescience.com/9578-common-ancestor-blue-eyes.h...

For fun, put your two browned eyed people with recessive blue eyed genes with 98 other people without any blue eye recessive genes. And see how things work out without any bias. Randomly breed that population without bias and see how things turn out. But then again, you already know the answer right? Oh yeah, make it "real" and don't create exactly 4 offsprings either. And see how things really turn out.

I just don't understand why people like you intentionally lie about such mundane stuff. I know that you know better since you "caught" my statistical "mistake". If you weren't wasting my and other people's time with lies, I wouldn't care. Heck, you are wasting your own time. I don't get it.

I'll end it here. For reals this time. Have a nice day.

> Everyone knew from that first cluster in Wuhan that this was much, much more dangerous. Everyone told you that. Everyone trustworthy, anyway.

I hope you find the CDC to be trustworthy because the CDC says on their website that the flu is more dangerous than covid for young people.

"For young children, especially children younger than 5 years old, the risk of serious complications is higher for flu compared with COVID-19."

"However, for adolescents, the risk of serious COVID-19 illness is less than in children younger than 5."

https://www.cdc.gov/flu/symptoms/flu-vs-covid19.htm

I agree with you that there are people who cavalierly dismiss the dangers of covid. But there are also people who oversell and exaggerate the dangers as well. Both are doing a disservice to people and society in general in my opinion.

Perhaps you meant covid is much more dangerous to some portions of the population while the flu was more dangerous to other portions of the population? Though I guess things could change in the future with more data and information.

> it's local and in-depth generic reporting that's struggling.

Exactly. And what's killing it is the big news companies like the NYT since they get preferential treatment by social media and search.

If you search for wildfires in idaho or california, you will most likely get links to NYT, WSJ, CBS, NBC, etc articles first instead of local news sources. People aren't going to click or scroll down to get a more accurate or indepth local source.

As more people use search and social media for news, it will be the local news that will suffer as tech caters to the biggest news companies.

I bet an idahoan who searches for wildfires in his state will more likely get an article from the BBC rather than a local source from idaho.

Seems like we are in an era where only the biggest survive in all industries.

> The reach is in how far you're applying it.

I'm not "applying it". I'm stating what it is.

> But then you can't say the natural programming is the reason.

Sure you can. Because as I said, infants do it. It's why the researchers chose infants and toddlers. Nobody TAUGHT an infant to prefer their own kind over others.

> It's one factor and not one of the bigger factors.

You are simply not getting it. We are NATURALLY programmed to prefer our in-group. But we can be programmed via propaganda ( government, media, education, etc ) to go AGAINST our programming.

> Do I seriously need to pull out a genetics textbook? If you keep a steady population

Not only do you fail at genetics, you fail at statistics.

> If two people with one copy have children, about a quarter of them will have blue eyes.

Right and 3/4th will have non-blue eyes. Just think about it. Breeding at random, the blue eyed population will simply diminish generation after generation.

> and have people marry at random

Also, who is talking about "random". The original commenter wrote : "I think people have an instinct for enriching their genome, that's why we're attracted to features our own group lacks, like different skin/hair color, facial structure, etc."

He was saying that people have an "instinct" and preference for out-group. I proved this was false with many sources. Science says that people have an "instinct" to prefer their in-group. The only way to counter it is with societal programming/propaganda. As I said.

I provided the sources. You aren't arguing against me, you are fighting against science. I'll end the "debate" here as it gets tiring repeating science over and over again.

2004 was 17 years ago? My god where did the time go. Someone born in 2004 will be 18 next year.

So if history does repeat, home prices will keep skyrocketing for 3 more years before another economic crisis? Or will it be different this time around?

All major tech companies are part of the state. Frankly, they are too important and useful not to be.

More than anything, this will be used by NSO to sell more services to unsuspecting and naive governments/political actors/orgs around the world. "See, we are neutral. We were even investigated by the Israeli government! How can we be part of the israeli government's spying operation when the israeli government 'raided' us? So you can trust us..".

> You're reaching. Early bias exists, but that doesn't remove culture from the equation.

I'm not "reaching". I didn't do the research. Scientists did. The research was on 3 month old infants. Before they are conscious. Before they know how to speak.

> Also, the difficulty of travel until quite recently would still lead to a lot of variety in different locations.

Right because miscegnation laws existed in the US because one simply couldn't travel from one town in alabama to another town in alabama.

> Culture is much more powerful.

I agree. Hence why I wrote: "To find out-group features to be desirable requires external pressure - media, education, etc.". Government/media/propaganda can easily undo our natural programming. But that doesn't mean that underlying natural programming doesn't exist.

> Also, that's not how recessive genes work.

No. That's exactly how it works.

To show how powerful culture is, you are denying science because it goes against your "programming". Also, just because I'm pointing out science doesn't mean I'm for miscegnation laws or against people marrying outside their group. I'm for people marrying who they like. Also, ever notice that it's people with an agenda who always downvote science?

> Has there been any research on Prions as a bio-terrorism weapon?

All such research has dual military-civilian usages. Similar to how all nuclear energy research has nuclear weapons implications. All space/rocket research has icbm implications.

As a matter of fact, all nuclear energy, space activity, etc by all nations are tied explicitly or implicitly to the military/defense.

It's why when our "enemies" ramp up on nuclear energy or space research, we ( the government and our media ) complain. It's also why we keep tabs on such research by our "allies" as well.

If any major nation is researching something, my guess is that they are also researching how to weaponize it and defend from it.

> This is not an accurate reading of history.

Is there such a thing as an "accurate reading of history"? I posit it's impossible.

> Turkey had, in fact, been destroyed at the end of the First World War.

No. The ottoman empire essentially was.

> So rather than being the Western puppet you portray him as, Atatürk was quite aggressive in defending the sovereignty of the new nation in a way that very early on led to military conflict with Western powers, conflicts which he won.

Ah yes, the turks "beat" the british empire, french "empire", the US, etc combined. Does that make any sense to you?

Ataturk did what "the West" wanted. He ended the ottoman caliphate and created the modern turkish republic.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abolition_of_the_Caliphate

The West offered the turks two choices. Create a turkish republic and thereby ending the ottoman empire. Or enduring the destruction of the Ottoman Empire AND the turkish nation. The turkish elites "chose" the former rather than facing complete annihilation. And turkey has been a vassal of the West ever since. Not that they had any choice in the matter, no more than japan or germany had a choice in the matter.

There is an "accurate reading of history" and deciphering what is really happening. Europe had been wanting the ottoman empire destroyed for hundreds of years. Ataturk gave them what they wanted.

To think that ataturk or the turks decided the matter rather than the US, Britain, France, etc combined is rather naive. Do you really think the turks wanted to go from being the leaders of one of the greatest and wealthiest empires to a middling nation begging for acceptance at europe's doorstep? I don't think so. But the power dynamics being what they were, it is what happened.

> I think people have an instinct for enriching their genome, that's why we're attracted to features our own group lacks, like different skin/hair color, facial structure, etc.

This is simply false. We know for a fact that humans have an in-group bias. Studies have shown that even infants and toddlers are biased toward their own in-group.

https://phys.org/news/2017-04-infants-racial-bias-members.ht...

https://time.com/67092/baby-racists-survival-strategy/

If what you claim is true, we would never have had miscegnation laws. Most people in the world wouldn't encourage marrying their own kind.

Just think about it. If people naturally favored the out-group ( people who look different ), racial/ethnic groups and diversity wouldn't exist. Blue eyes and blonde hair wouldn't exist because they are recessive traits. We wouldn't have any diversity because ethnic/racial groups require in-group bias to exist. The fact that we have black people, white people, indian people, chinese people, etc shows that in-group bias is the norm.

People naturally find their own kind and traits to be attractive. We know it's innate since it exists in babies. To find out-group features to be desirable requires external pressure - media, education, etc.

Edit: Since so many here are downvoting science because of their political agenda...

"We Choose Friends Who Are Genetically Similar to Us"

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/we-choose-friends-...

"I like your genes: People more likely to choose a spouse with similar DNA"

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/05/140519160716.h...

We didn't lift anyone out of poverty. Stop with the lies.

After hundreds of years of european colonization, half of africa still has no electricity.

https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2019/11/13/more-tha...

The poorest people in america, australia, etc are the indigenuous people.

Most of india, after 200+ years of colonization is mired in poverty.

https://www.soschildrensvillages.ca/news/poverty-in-india-60...

And "the West" didn't create the modern world. The "modern world" doesn't exist without india, china, africa, etc.

Isn't this well known already? Don't small volcano eruptions create their own localized weather systems over the crater as well?

No. We just exterminated countless indigenuous peoples/nations and stole their land. Not to mention stealing resources/capital from china, india, middle east, africa, etc plunging much of the world into unimaginable poverty from which many still haven't recovered. Nothing as terrible as the gulags...

> A country choosing to adopt the ways of another is only evil if it is forced upon them by outsiders.

You are ignoring the fact that the ottoman empire had been invaded by european powers for hundreds of years and ultimately destroyed by european powers. And that european powers were threatening to destroy Turkey completely unless the turks "bent the knee".

You are painting a rather biased picture of what the "leader of Turkey" did. It was under duress - real threat of national disintegration and even genocide. It wasn't that Ataturk wanted to take Turkey in a particular direction, it was that external forces gave him no choice. It was either submit his european masters or cease to exist.

Neither Ataturk nor Turkey was in a position to take their country wherever they wanted. They were essentially a vanquished nation and pretty much had no choice but to do as the europeans powers ( and later on america ) told them to.

> Other countries are not museums needing protection from change.

Sure, but they aren't mimics either that exist to mindlessly copy or be forced to copy the world's biggest bullies.

In an ideal world, countries can copy from others what they choose, but that's sadly not how the world works. The most brutal force their "values" on the weaker.

> The money was not as important as the workers, thinkers, raw materials.

Industrialization requires money ( capital ) + resources ( workers, thinkers, raw materials, etc ). Money, being half the equation, is quite important. But in actuality, money/capital in capitalism is the driver/catalyst for everything and hence you could say it is the most important thing.

Also the guy's idea that JPMorgan and the money from their relatively small ( though leading ) bank provided enough capital for the "Second" Industrial Revolution doesn't pass the smell test. Certainly European capital played an important role but it was mostly funded by capital generated via the opium trade. One only needs to look at the explosion of banks created in the 19th century due to the opium trade in the US and British territories.

Perversely enough, these same banks capitalized with chinese opium money would be the source of capital that started china's industrialization 50 years ago. China certainly had the resources ( workers, thinkers, raw material, etc ), but they didn't have the capital for industrialization.

Most people think it's the excess population/workers, raw materials, etc that drove industrialization but it's was actually excess capital. The elites wanted to their "money to work".

What killed Usenet, IRC, etc is new technology/platforms not "irritation from a handful of people". If that was the case, facebook, reddit, twitter, etc would have died a long time ago.

But there are no cases of a successful tech industry without government support. So we can safely say government support is key. Perhaps government support is necessary but not sufficient.

> Putting in the hard (and smart) work and persevering is all you can do.

I mostly agree. But if the problem is systematic ( slavery, indentured servitude, etc ), leaving or trying to change the system is probably better than putting in the hard/smart work and persevering. There are other options than just hard work and perseverance depending on the environment/situation.

It's not odd. The journalist who wrote this piece mostly likely regurgitated misinformation/propaganda he read it elsewhere. Since you clarified the tech misinformation, I'll tackle the historical misinformation.

> changing the course of the war and giving the Allies a significant advantage over their Nazi adversaries.

Turing, Bletchley Park, Engima machine had no material impact on the war. 90% of the german military were destroyed by the Soviets in the eastern front in a simple battle of attrition. It would have served the soviets better if britain had shut down bletchley park and used those resources to send bullets/trucks/etc to the Soviets. Turing, Bletchley Park, etc provide no advantage over the germans as the germans were already heavily disadvantaged - by population, economy, technology, military, etc.

The soviets by themselves vastly outnumbered the germans and had a far greater military industrial complex. The soviets produced more tanks, planes, guns, etc than the germans. Now toss in the british empire and the US and the germans stood no chance.

It's amazing how misleading the media, news, etc are when it comes to ww2. One look at the actual data/facts/stats is rather sobering. Germany had no chance of winning. You have a better shot at beating 3 heavy weight MMA fighters at the same time than Germany had of beating the US/Soviet Union/British Empire. Go look at the data of Japan vs the US/China/British Empire/etc. Japan had even longer odds.

The propaganda that has been built around Turing, Enigma machine and WW2 in recent years is rather impressive. I guess being one of the founders of Computer Science isn't good enough? We have to exaggerate/lie about him winning ww2?

Softbank has served as the intermediary of a few major tech asset transfers the past decade - Sprint->TMobile, ARM->Nvidia,BD->Hyundai. Pretty impressive stuff given the geopolitical/regulatory implications. Who knew Softbank had such clout? The more you read about Softbank, the "curiouser" it gets.

I'll do you one better. If you learn the history of media, then you'll realize why you see propaganda everywhere. Even more simply, one only has to ask why would anyone create a media company? Why did Trump threaten to create a media company after losing the election? To get the "truth" out there? Or get his propaganda out there? Every mainstream media company, in the US, Europe, China, Russia, etc was created the wealthy or politically elite. Once you understand this, everything falls into place and you can move on with your life. It's sad so many people waste their lives over news/media that exists to manipulate and control them. How many relationships, friendships, lives have been ruined by media?

> Whats with operating systems and religion

Many daemons lurk in OSes. Sometimes religion provides the comfort and safety you need to face the horrors hiding in operating systems.

Isn't H1-B a program for foreign workers, not entrepreneurs? Everything you listed (education,salary,job location,etc) has to do with workers, not entrepreneurs.

"And all the days of Noah were nine hundred and fifty years: and he died." - Genesis 9:29

You can argue that Noah was "grandfathered in" since he was born before the 120 year rule. But..

"And Arphaxad lived after he begat Salah four hundred and three years, and begat sons and daughters." - Genesis 11:13

> I think it is the wood mafia trying to make a living out of enforcing city codes to use only lumber for houses.

Not really. No more than the ice mafia made the inuit build igloos out of ice. People do with what they have. The eastern seaboard is chock full of trees. When the settlers arrived, they used what was readily available. It's far easier for settlers to make homes out of wood than stone/rocks/etc and concrete didn't exist back in the 1600s/1700s. And as the borders of the country expanded westward, the style of homes made its way west as well.

> In German, it is called Die kleine Raupe Nimmersatt which, translated word-by-word, means The small Caterpillar Never-sated. I always found that an especially cute name.

So if we translated it from german directly back to english, the title would be "The Insatiable Caterpillar". Which is close to original "The Very Hungry Caterpillar" but not quite the same. There is a difference between "insatiable" and "very hungry" - namely the "very hungry" can eventually be sated.

It's strange how the translation/conversion from one language to another and then back doesn't necessarily get you the original. It would be like converting $10 to euros and then back to dollars doesn't get you the original $10 ( ignoring fees ).

Isn't that how it's always been. People just regurgitate the media they consume. It used to be sermons at church. Then it moved to print, radio and tv. Now it expanded to the internet/social media. Whether we like it or not, we've all been programmed by the media that we consume.

"Whoever controls the media controls the mind" - Jim Morrison