muaytimbo

lolol, "There was a three or four month window, right when the vaccines were first released, when a 95+% implementation of the initial vaccine shot could have produced a reasonably close facsimile of herd immunity, such that it would have made it several orders more difficult for the virus to effectively mutate. It could have conceivably cut the subsequent death toll in half, if not more."

This is a statement that has many claims: 1. 95% implementation (whatever that means) in a specified time window of initial vaccine could've produced herd immunity 2. This herd immunity would've made it "several orders of more difficult" for the virus to mutate 3 The estimate of a 50% reduction in death toll.

I certainly can't remember something that didn't happen, herd immunity that *would've made mutation more difficult" or a "50% reduction" that didn't happen.

Your memory must be better than mine, it remembers statistics and estimates from counterfactual events.

You are making numerous claims throughout this thread without a single citation.

Where can I find a study that supports this: "There was a three or four month window, right when the vaccines were first released, when a 95+% implementation of the initial vaccine shot could have produced a reasonably close facsimile of herd immunity, such that it would have made it several orders more difficult for the virus to effectively mutate. It could have conceivably cut the subsequent death toll in half, if not more.

Unfortunately, politics and antivaxx disinformation got in the way of that. And people continued to die in droves due to selfishness and lies."

Fish ladders are completely ineffective [1].

[1] https://conbio.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/conl....

A lot of positions even within FAANGs have nothing to do with Surveillance.

It IS unfashionable, dams are actively being removed across the US in order to restore the ecosystems they shattered. Migratory fish and all predators higher up the trophic chain are devastated by any type of dam.

I guess the politicians at a loss could try to sue each individual plaintiff that was previously paid out, but that seems improbable. That would be a good thing in practice, if you toe up to the line so close that multiple courts overrule each other you lose regardless. That would help keep our rights intact.

you didn't read my comment in full, note the use of the word "personal" financial penalties.

People don't elect politicians based on trust, that's crazy. They choose the lesser of two evils (in the US generally).

If thousands of people need this every year (and the bar to getting it is low as you say) why is privacy not the default? Wouldn't that be easier?

Don’t developers face consequences over bugs in their code? Too many and you might get shown the door.

I’d like to see them held accountable. Every person who was affected by an unconstitutional law should have the ability to sue for damages arising from the intentional abridgment of their constitutional rights.

Our rights would remain more intact if lawmakers actually faced personal financial penalties when they try to deny us the already very few rights afforded to us by the constitution.

You say it like negative articles about Comp Sci/Applied Programming/Really any Tech Co from the NYT is a thing of the past. It's with a sense of irony that articles denouncing Tech is easy, routine clickbait for them now.

Somehow, I doubt you have much "practicing" this.

replace "Aristocracy" with "political class"

Your assertion that 90% of scientific papers aren't reproducible is extremely simplistic. There is a vast difference in reproducibility across the different scientific fields. A lot of the "reproducibility" crisis is taking place in fields that are not even traditionally known as science.

This guy already sounds, in his own words, "neutered". "We have to listen to regulators, we have to listen to the community, etc" there are no regulations, and even if there were, imagine if Uber, Lyft, AirBnB, Tesla, or other startups had taken this position. Listening to regulators / the community / anyone without a stake in the company is literally the quickest way to get killed by regulators captured by incumbent competitors.

Chicago also uses cans instead of throwing trash onto the streets. In conjunction with using alleyways I think we have planned structural differences between the two populations. Surely the beginning of an argument for the "cleaner" and "cleaner habits" between the two.

handwriting experts?

Chicago is a much cleaner city. No comparison with New Haven, NYC (where I used to live), Philly (where I live now) or really anywhere else on the east coast. The culture of throwing trash on the ground is endemic on the east coast.

I was flying from NYC to Denver a few months ago and a Denverite and I struck up a conversation on this very topic after observing multiple people throwing trash on the floor in LGA. Speaking of which, Denver, another city that is much cleaner than anywhere on the east coast.

Two additional plainly stated reasons in the article suggest licensing "is bad" that you left out of this bulleted list are: competitive pricing, supply responding to demand surge (indeed the entire reason the article was written).

I lived in New Haven for 4 years. The difference in the amount of trash between American cities is vast, compare NYC with Chicago. Or really any city on the east coast with Chicago for that matter.

The infamous SF poop map provides some insight: https://www.arcgis.com/apps/View/index.html?appid=b6fab72091...

It's unfortunate because I like reading Lowe usually, but these pieces that obfuscate and explain to us how we should feel about something so obvious is telling.

This is an interesting case, making chimeras can always be thought of as "gain-of-function" research because you really only know if you succeeded after you've created and tested the new organism, and there might be failures along the way if indeed creating a more lethal organism is your goal.

In this case there is some handwaving about 80% mortality vs 100% mortality in a mouse host about it technically not being more lethal than the original. But what if the testing revealed 100% mortality plus some other metric of increased transmissibility or something similar after the fact. It would've been unknown to the researchers at the time of synthesis and fit every definition of "gain-of-function" research.

I think in light of this inability to know apriori if a virus is going to be more/less lethal we're splitting hairs when we say this is not technically "gain-of-function" research.

Virologists at academic centers like BU are beholden to their paymasters. Grant-writing and groveling day in and day out. I'm not sure what feelings develop in that endless loop of futility.

So we can trust them to break and enforce the law. Sounds confusing and like a net zero to me. Why are we paying for that?

I don't think I would trust hired security, unless you are literally the richest person there could always be a higher bidder. The mercs could turn double at any time and you gave them the keys.

And not showcasing power, concealing or misdirecting the perception of your power or lack thereof, has been identified as an important strategy from Sun Tzu to Teddy Roosevelt.

I suspect they are interested in doing graph ML, computation chemists are good at that.

I'm doubtful counting on the police in real time to help grandma if she's in trouble, they normally show up well after the damage is done. But you're right some people are not able to protect themselves but I'm still not convinced they would be worse off.

The article this comment is under is about police "breaking" the law, not enforcing it, so you can see I'm already skeptical of what you posit their role in society is. For not so important people like me the "enforcement" is non-existant, they show up after a crime has been committed, write a report, and do nothing. Not very different from no police force. The only time they actually do an investigation is when a bank is robbed or someone rich and influential is hurt. I'd rather just stop paying for the non-service I don't receive.