jayspell

So are you stating that 3% of the daily deaths from COVID-19 are of fully vaccinated people? I cannot find anything backing this up online, and even that seems like it would be a near zero number if you're measuring against recoveries.

Everyone who wants the vaccine can get the vaccine. If you get the vaccine, you have a minuscule, almost zero chance of having a bad response the virus. If you don't have the vaccine and you get the virus you have a small chance (if you're healthy) of having a terminal response to the virus, but if you do, it's on you, you chose to not get vaccinated. I believe it's safe to say we can back off the panic phase of the virus.

The Netflix documentary, The Social Dilemma exposed the algorithms are designed to create "engagement" or clicks, that may look different for different people. If you happen to begin clicking links that make you angry you will have a feed that skews towards the kinds of posts that infuriate you (this is typical - rage really sucks most of us in). If you select links with puppies all day long, that is what you are going to get, puppies. I have personally seen this in my YouTube feed. If I select two or three videos on a particular topic all of the sudden my feed is filled with those videos. Personally it is really aggravating. I may want to watch one or two videos about JRR Tolkien, but I don't want to see a bunch of fan theory LOTR videos.

So that article admits right at the outset that it is extremely speculative. You could just as easily post an extremely speculative article that shows the entire world will be jungle with the rise in temperatures.

I can't wait for this movie, it's gonna be great.

What is a population growth rate that is sustainable? I guess I fall into a camp who finds the idea that we need less people around to help out the planet preposterous, without people around what is the point? I find it's well worth the risk to make those technological improvements. People are amazing, let's go to Mars, let's go lasso asteroids and mine them, let's journey to the center of the earth. Full speed ahead!!! Damn the torpedos!!

I can appreciate the authors anger at being filtered through a process that denies employment based on a lack of a degree. I don't disagree that there is a problem, I believe the author lacks a clear vision of what exactly to do about the problem.

For senior level roles you do need someway to determine who can actually perform the job, qualifications will discriminate against some pool of candidates. If you require experience you are discriminating based on age, if you require a professional certification you are discriminating against those who haven't achieved the certification.

The question seems to be what to do about other roles, like writer, or developer where the pool of applicants can be large. How do you filter out unqualified candidates? Whatever metric you choose becomes the new factor of discrimination.

A college degree is an easy button in some sense. It proves you can stick with a long term goal. It proves you can pass some sort of basic tests. It shows you potentially have some of the qualities required. It's not guaranteed, there are horrible lawyers who passed the bar.

What WSB is doing is peaceful protest. Based on your definition of violence the Montgomery bus boycott was violence.

Where do you see it as being fifty times more deadly? Wikipedia lists Hong Kong flu deaths in US as upwards of 100,000 with 100m less people in the country. Even at fifty times more deadly it is not greatest cause of death this year. Heart disease and cancer have killed far more (over a million collectively). The response is way out of proportion to what we have seen. I believe the initial response was appropriate given the projections (which turned out to be a complete fabrication) of millions dead in US alone. We've seen what this virus is, it's not millions dead. We can't cancel life for a couple of years waiting for this to go away, everyone needs to get on with their lives, getting married, seeing people over the holidays. This continued fearful response is preposterous.

I said nothing about masks. This thread has people advocating murder charges for going to a wedding and spreading to someone who dies afterwards. WHO said lockdowns should not be primary method of stopping the spread. Lockdowns harm as much as help, loss of jobs at the lower end of the socioeconomic spectrum, cancer screenings delayed, mental health issues related to isolation, and we don't know the huge cost of what has already occurred. Quite a few want to look at one thing and not the entirety of a situation. The stats show that this virus is no worse than the Hong Kong flu (1-4 million people died in 1968 / 1969). We went to the freaking moon and held Woodstock during that time. You don't value life by not living it.

Not the original poster - just replying with some ideas...

I would purpose that Google in particular be broken into many different companies. The fact that they own such a large part of mobile, browser, search, video, email, news aggregation, online office products is hugely problematic. I believe one of the issues that was not highlighted is the overall reach of these companies, they focus in on the mobile aspect, but there are huge swathes of data being collected via other means. Search in particular should not have a bias in the autocomplete - search should be agnostic, like Wikipedia. When I search it should show the same results as when you search. Next there should be a requirement that these companies provide access to a users data back to them, along with the analytical output that creates their digital avatar. There should be the ability to FULLY delete the data per a request. Next there should be a requirement that the sites provide ability to utilize their services with browser anonymity enabled. Much of the data leakage is harvested automatically from the mobile device or browser, the ability to slow the trickle of information should be required by law. Perhaps a requirement that a price that an advertiser paid for each ad should show up, and an opportunity for the user to opt-out and pay for the service instead at the same rates in truly anonymized fashion. More extreme options - restrictions on access based on age, we do this for cigarettes and alcohol, perhaps this should be applied to social media as well. Perhaps there should be a throttle on data gathering or hard limits placed on how much data can be pulled in and kept. Require maximum data retention periods on this data to make the models dumber. We have data retention periods set for health data - why not restrict it for social media.

Really? You would rather the guy building it was associated with CCP?

I agree with this, free enterprise is amazing. A company should be free to set the standards of the service they provide. But I also believe that Standard Oil needed to be broken up and Microsoft needed to be reined in. I believe we all feel the need to exercise some degree of oversight on these giant corporations. Not long ago there was a lot of discussion about Hobby Lobby and its fight against some of the healthcare regulations passed by President Obama. Issues are always more nuanced than the internet makes them appear. I believe there is plenty of divisiveness on both sides, it doesn't take much to find examples of both. That is kind of my point, we are feeding a monster and don't seem to realize it.

I hate the term "these people" some of "these people" meet some of your criteria but not all. You would likely place me in the category of "these people" because I believe social media favors the left side of arguments. I believe in a fair an open internet, let ideas be shared and stop censoring. Every group is a hypocrite, but everyone feels justified in their hypocrisy. It would go a long way if we stopped dividing each other up into camps.