invisible

It's pretty crazy how often people fall asleep behind the wheel.

There is a big discussion in this post about iatrogenics being introduced by these tests. It sounds like the fear here is that it'll tax an already burdened system with more patients (some of which just got a false positive).

I'm failing to understand how that's any different from other blood tests: they signal a problem, then more has to be established to validate the signal. Nobody is saying "this test proves someone has cancer" and I'm pretty sure doctors already have to discuss how tests can be inaccurate with patients. I believe it's the case that symptoms of cancer (just like other illnesses) may be ignored exactly because there aren't any other signals to indicate cancer. Plus zebras and horses and all of that too. Perhaps someone does have symptoms but nobody connects the dots, and these tests might connect those dots. Is there some reason that this argument is invalid in medical science?

Wodenokoto may have different explanation, but I'm guessing it's just down to the raw data processed. If you're making a view that winds up running a query on the origin table with a `WHERE` added, then you're still processing the entire table for each query.

I don't think row-level security will be any better based on this documentation.

I'm not sure if I'm missing your comparison, but an accountant doesn't calculate how much/which tax should be paid in real-time based on the business and the user's location and then automatically account for that.

I don't know how much it's worth, but properly supporting tax takes a lot of effort to do correctly in real-time.

Sure.

https://www.npr.org/2018/11/09/665994751/judge-puts-keystone...

Edit (add NEPA info): https://www.epa.gov/nepa/what-national-environmental-policy-...

There is no mention in the article about the previous permit being revoked by the court for being illegal.

This seems like a response to The Great Suspender fiasco. There are some conspiracy theories about Google, but that situation was potentially really bad for users. Nobody really knows how bad it actually was given how many installs the extension had.

And yet the situation could happen again today without anyone being the wiser for months.

I turned up the person who actually made the image, and their choice for how they made this image makes me confused:

https://twitter.com/GrumpyOldAstro/status/139637061036883149...

Essentially, they chose to multiply any light from all of the frames.

It makes sense that each frame would suffer from signal-to-noise problems and be degraded, but given that this image was created over 2 hours -- is there really any loss in quality if sampled correctly? I could honestly believe there are a bunch of complexities beyond this, but: is this already having to be done _anyway_?

On the face of it, a composite image of space that has no adjustments being ruined by 2x the number of satellites does seem pretty bad and damaging for researchers. Beyond that, it still might be worth it to actually be able to provide internet to people that either don't have access, have an insane cost to access, and/or have a bad provider currently.

The argument I've seen is that this stuff can be adjusted for and that most researchers have already had to adjust for it (since there are ~1500 non-Starlink satellites already). Is that just an utter fallacy?

I see your perspective but I disagree with the conclusions.

Let me put it one other way: if he didn’t organize people and then make that speech, do you think there would have been a riot at all?

I'm not sure what answer would have satisfied your question if it wasn't asked with poor intent. There are many differences, including Trump organizing the group together that then turned into rioters after his speech.

It's apples to oranges because she was not speaking directly to a crowd that was being encouraged to make an election go her way, as Trump was.

An example of what exactly? That his speech contained a bunch of euphemisms and some of them may have been taken as calls to violence? Do you expect me to provide a clear example of him telling folks go harm congress members? We can all agree he didn't say any direct quotes like that. I did link to a full article that contained highlights for things that I'd consider euphemisms.

Here are a few (not even all of them):

- "... these people are not going to take it any longer, they’re not going to take it any longer."

- "... to see our election victory stolen by bold and radical left Democrats. ... We will never concede. It doesn’t happen. You don’t concede when there’s theft involved. ... We will not take it anymore, and that is what this is all about. .. We’re just not going to let that happen."

- "We want to be so respectful of everybody, including bad people. And we’re going to have to fight much harder."

- "... Because you’ll never take back our country with weakness."

- "Well, I would say yes, it does, because the Constitution says you have to protect our country, and you have to protect our Constitution, and you can’t vote on fraud, and fraud breaks up everything, doesn’t it? When you catch somebody in a fraud, you are allowed to go by very different rules."

- "Looking out at all of the amazing patriots here today, I have never been more confident in our nation’s future."

- "But I said something is wrong here, something is really wrong, can’t have happened, and we fight. We fight like hell, and if you don’t fight like hell you’re not going to have a country anymore."

The crowd was literally chanting "fight for Trump" during the speech before they went and...surprise... fought for Trump.

Then after, he tweeted a video and some text:

- "... Stay peaceful!"

- "No violence!"

- "We had an election that was stolen from us. ... We have to have peace. ... I know how you feel."

- "These are the things and events that happen when a sacred landslide election victory is so unceremoniously & viciously stripped away from great patriots who have been badly & unfairly treated for so long. Go home with love & in peace. Remember this day forever!"

So yeah, he called for peace after rallying the crowd to fight for him. At the same time, he was saying that it was justified and that he feels the same way as the folks rioting.

I actually just called "fight" (and words like it) out as one of the things (using the term "like" to imply this) not the strongest indicator. He also made assertions that the country was being stolen from those people, that this was their last chance to do anything about it before the downfall of the country, that the crowd couldn't be weak, that the whole thing was illegal, that conceding isn't an option, and that the enemy (Democrats) were to blame. You're picking my selection of the word "fight" as a straw man that you keep attacking as if he wasn't whipping them up with tribalism and violent symbolism immediately before they marched on the Capitol building.

He scheduled the speech nearby so that they would march on the Capitol building (it's literally in his speech). Others have spent time detailing this out[0]. Again, he picked many words and phrases that he used to convey to the crowd that this was a time for _action_. If he wasn't aware that crowd was going to react to his words with action, then that'd make him pretty dense.

I think I've exhaustively gotten the point across that using the term "fight" in a speech isn't the problem. If you want to whack it again, go for it.

0: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/interactive/2021/ann...

Using the words "if not" in English in this manner indicates that it is a further extreme than the preceding portion of the sentence (and not strictly a matter of fact). There is a spectrum there, obviously, and I could argue for specific instance of him using "fight" as being sketchy, but really that he used the term over a dozen times is striking to me. Connecting patriotism and fighting alongside the election being stolen from them had a message that more action than usual was necessary. That was the underlying message.

He used a lot of euphemisms, and I think there is some evidence there that he knew the message he was sending to the crowd.

Patriot: a person who vigorously supports their country and is prepared to defend it against enemies or detractors.

Fight: take part in a violent struggle involving the exchange of physical blows or the use of weapons.

Steal: take (another person's property) without permission or legal right and without intending to return it.

This is a great article detailing what was said, including why it is only _mostly_ true that he called for peace.

> However, it does not necessarily mean the president did not incite violence with the rest of his speech or in his rhetoric prior to January 6.

Stop straw manning what I said. That speech was written and was trying to accomplish a goal. Ignoring that public speaking is intended to influence people is like pretending that his words didn't matter at all.

He mentioned being peaceful once, but then suggested that the nation was being stolen from them and that they should be patriots and fight back.

Public health is complex, and it's a bit tough for us to "agree" that it's "okay" to have different, looser perspectives on how to manage a pandemic. If 50% of the population decides that COVID-19 is fake and that nobody is actually affected at all, then we would have no power as a society to do anything about pandemics.

Maybe you're hung up on what "boring" means? That could be really life fulfilling things like connecting with friends, trying hard at work, financial planning, relaxing, etc.

This isn't a counterargument, but sometimes more data isn't better data. I think lidar is super impressive in the right conditions, but debris in the air can be considered a bird even if it's a paper bag. If Waymo is having to still use CV to validate that it's a paper bag, then aren't they having to solve both problems? (Not that that is a bad thing, but it is at least two problems. I'm not certain who will achieve a working system, or if any of the players today will at all.)

I'm a fan of both approaches, but Waymo is very heavily reliant on Lidar (and uses CV for augmenting). They have been working on this problem for 12 years now and have just launched in Phoenix, using high definition maps, lidar, and a suite of other sensors. They have <1000 vehicles. Zero fatalities attributed to Waymo.

Tesla has been working on this problem for somewhere close to half the time and with far fewer resources initially. Tesla has a million cars on the road across the entire world and only use basic sensors and CV. Six fatalities have been attributed to Tesla (and the driver).

So there really isn't a lot of data to go on for who is "winning" but Tesla has much more driver data. The fatalities are so low compared to the miles driven that it's difficult to really know if Waymo could achieve a better result.

I'd like to point out the obvious but those links are written about flus.

Here is the advice that replaces that 2007 CDC paper (from 2017):

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/66/rr/rr6601a1.htm

> NPIs can be phased in, or layered, on the basis of pandemic severity and local transmission patterns over time.

It goes on to explain that it may suggest "lockdowns" if the pandemic is severe enough.

Here are the two actual papers that other link is based on (the 2nd of these is more applicable):

- https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/12/1/05-1370_article

- https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/12/1/05-1371_article (see phase 6)

Some quotes:

> A 1959 WHO consultation concluded, "In the Northern hemisphere at least, the opening of schools after the summer holidays seems to have played an important role in initiating the main epidemic phase" (13). Despite the propensity of influenza epidemics to be amplified in primary schools (14), data on the effectiveness of school closures are limited. Apparently no data or analyses exist for recommending illness thresholds or rates of change that should lead to considering closing or reopening schools.

> Apparently no controlled studies assess the efficacy of mask use in preventing transmission of influenza viruses.

> As noted above, influenza virus isolation rates decreased, but since multiple measures were implemented, the contribution of mask use, if any, is uncertain (20). In case-control studies conducted in Beijing and Hong Kong, wearing masks in public was independently associated with protection from SARS in a multivariate analysis.

These papers are from 2006. They are also very clear that the circumstances matter. Regarding international travel, it seems they suggest that restricting travel would be difficult, if not impossible. They suggest closing schools if a link is unknown or found between schools and transmission.

The argument against lockdowns was based on it being comparable to a cold/flu season.

The number hospitalized so for COVID-19 in the US exceeds the 2017-2018 season. Additionally, the mortality rate is an order of magnitude higher (61k in 2017-2018 flus vs ~500k+ for COVID-19 so far, US). Dealing with dying patients is harder on hospital staff. Treating a new illness was challenging for hospitals. That result is with the extraordinary measures that we, as a society, have taken.

>Neither is true.

I’ll admit, it’s tough to say what the lockdowns did to/for us. I’m not prepared to assert the truth as willingly as you are. I’m going to have to defer to the only study I could find on this: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2404-8

What does the word “suggesting” mean to you (in the sentence as I used it)? I’m guessing “some leading the reader to believe that it is the same as a cold” would have been more clear.

There are multiple replies and retweets that compare COVID-19 to flus/colds in a “COVID-19 is the same” context. Or suggesting that drastic measures are unwarranted or unreasonable.

The kerpen tweet thread is troubling because it suggests that the CDC is both providing accurate data and that they are only providing guidance for political reasons. So they aren’t lying, but they are? Then he compares COVID-19 to the flu and cold, ignoring that transmission by children can affect adults.

Here is another one (in addition to the one above about children):

> No lockdown in 2017-2018 cold season!

https://twitter.com/BrendanEich/status/1335873383209177088?s...

That is ignoring that the fatality rate and transmission rate is significantly higher in COVID-19.

Maybe all of these things comparing the equivalence of the cold and COVID-19 mean nothing to you, but they seem significant to me. Perhaps you’ll defend these by saying, “in isolation this data is accurate.” That point falls flat when taken in context to our situation — they are marketing a perspective.

You asked me for some citations for my comments and then criticized that I provided citations for why I said what I said. Nobody said you’re on “Team Reality” but you.

(Oh, and also: I can’t go back further than 10/10 on your tweets but there were a number of retweets from EthicalSkeptic saying that the death count was a lie and suggesting that COVID-19 wasn’t a big deal.)

Edit: Here is a comment from someone in the thread discussed. This is the “subtext” I see. https://twitter.com/MarkChangizi/status/1282074580350312450?...

Hopefully 0-10 help illuminate what I’m talking about.

I think 11 and 12 point to masks being a good idea. The graphs you linked ignore population density and seasonal increases in transmission of viruses. An increase after a mask mandate isn’t proof that the mandate had no impact.

0. https://twitter.com/kerpen/status/1360069067017748480?s=21 — “Reminder: with flu and RSV down ~98% and replaced by COVID, which is far less dangerous to children, we are in literally the mildest respiratory illness season for children in recorded history.”

1. https://twitter.com/brendaneich/status/1336918916895965185?s...

2. https://twitter.com/brendaneich/status/1336920895344975873?s...

3. https://twitter.com/brendaneich/status/1335840898807070720?s...

4. https://twitter.com/brendaneich/status/1335346330500141056?s...

5. https://twitter.com/davidbcollum/status/1329789976683409408?...

6. https://twitter.com/ianmsc/status/1333851832205012992?s=21

7. https://twitter.com/hold2llc/status/1328879434456330242?s=21

8. https://twitter.com/ewoodhouse7/status/1323115034239737856?s...

9. https://twitter.com/ianmsc/status/1320811573682728960?s=21

10. I can’t go back far enough, but there were a series of graphs from EthicalSkeptic which seemed less than ethical.

11. https://apps.who.int/iris/rest/bitstreams/1279750/retrieve

12. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prevent-getting-si...

I follow you on Twitter and think some of your ideas are great. That being said, a lot of the COVID graphs you retweet ignore population density and contend that COVID isn’t a pandemic. (Some suggesting it’s the same as a cold.)

Also, flatly saying that mask mandates don’t work is wrong. The evidence is (and has been) that they are effective if used properly. (Don’t touch them, wash hands, and single use or clean them.) Unfortunately, lots of people don’t use them properly and that lessens their effectiveness. You have retweeted things implying that masks don’t work.

I routinely recommend folks use https://www.freetaxusa.com/ for federal taxes. That being said, that this isn't a not-for-profit and/or government service is pretty ridiculous.

I agree with your points but it should be noted for the second point: they are doing more than just saying a business is crappy. They are betting billions on that business being perceived negatively. In essence, they are throwing their weight behind suggesting that the financials of GameStop are poor. They are betting that the average investor will see those negative signals and that, on average, the stock will do poorly.