sfj

> Mitigation tactics like shelter in place, ppe, and physical distancing are working. Tiger repelling rock would make sense if there was no data supporting this thesis.

It's the same as "You don't see any tigers around do you?" It's anecdotal. How do you know which of what you said is doing it, Shelter in place, ppe, physical distancing, or something else? You have no idea.

>> decide for themselves

>They elect officials to represent them. That is what Alameda County is doing.

Hey, thanks for snipping out the subject of "those that feel vulnerable" and implying I was talking about the majority of voters. And, you also know the person that ordered the stay at home order was appointed right?

>> And who's going to suffer most when he pulls his factory out of California?

> I don't have any data to tell you who that would be.

A state without private enterprise is not a good one for those "10,000 latinos and blacks" you worry so much about.

> Why else do you think we've managed to keep it in control despite having some dense city centers?

I've got a tiger repelling rock to sell you, only $6 Trillion.

Seriously, why does everyone need to stay at home, rather than those that feel vulnerable decide for themselves? We could even have free clean food delivered to them, at a fraction of the cost to society. Also, as a bonus, we'd reach herd immunity much faster.

> Musk would rather profit and see 10,000 dead black and latino Californians. Good riddance to him.

He'd rather save his business. And who's going to suffer most when he pulls his factory out of California?

They don't bar anyone from being hospitalized having then recovering from any other illness. Speaks to the worry about permanent effects.

I'll pay you $6 trillion for that rock. Let me know next month if another will be available.

- U.S. Gov

Also the people who stand to benefit from cheating, then are elected and tasked with preventing it. How is that incentive structure going to work?

I think that, instead of requiring locking everyone in their homes to save a few, we should give people the option to isolate themselves from everyone else. This would entail free rent and clean food delivery sponsored by the government.

This would then reduce covid-19 to a risk factor on par with every other self-inflicted risk. If you worry about your health, stay home, if not go live your life. It would actually be compatible with our constitution as well, which would be nice.

Invisiclues were not part of the early releases. It was an unsolved game for years in our house.

He could easily turn around the lives of hundreds of people without affecting his lifestyle at all. That isn't nothing.

It would also lead by example. If others followed him, he would have helped the lives of many times that.

Having the troll eat itself wouldn't remove the light source. The troll didn't have a light to begin with, it can see in the dark.

> So it worked "better", yes.

Now I don't understand what you were replying to. I thought it was "South Korea is anomalous. Has literally any other country been able to replicate their success?" I don't see how it "worked better" answers whether it "replicated S.K.'s success". I'd argue it didn't because it didn't have S.K's problem (having not become a massive issue)

> It's not about closing down or opening up, but proper preparation and responses according to the circumstances. So we can draw ideas from countries that manage better.

Can we learn from Taiwan? Sure, and probably will. But their situation was never what we are facing now.

> If the goal is herd immunity, of course, it's not better. However, that comes with heavy costs and there's no consensus which strategy is best. Likely, the differeing strategies will converge somewhat. We can live fine with a scaled-down, controlled pandemic.

I also agree that this hope for herd immunity is a risky bet. Given it has already mutated at the hook site, I don't think a vaccine or antibodies is going to save us. If we reach herd immunity or develop a vaccine for one strain, then another may spread again like wildfire, just like the flu.

It was never an epidemic in Taiwan, and they never did a shelter in place order nor closed businesses. They simply did contact tracing before it became a problem.

> Opening things back up prematurely, without sufficient testing, is just going to get people killed.

But how many will get killed? Allowing people to drive down the street also kills people. What's the limit?

> I read elsewhere that for genetically engineer viruses (which there is speculation that this may be the case here) are quick to lose their alterations via the natural mutation process.

It's speculated that the genetic engineering in this case was for “gain-of-function”, specifically to enable it to infect humans, so it's unlikely to lose its alteration.

From https://medium.com/@yurideigin/lab-made-cov2-genealogy-throu...

The fact that the deeper you dive into the research activities of coronavirologists over the past 15–20 years, the more you realize that creating chimeras like CoV2 was commonplace in their labs. And CoV2 is an obvious chimera (though not nesessarily a lab-made one), which is based on the ancestral bat strain RaTG13, in which the receptor binding motif (RBM) in its spike protein is replaced by the RBM from a pangolin strain, and in addition, a small but very special stretch of 4 amino acids is inserted, which creates a furin cleavage site that, as virologists have previously established, significantly expands the “repertoire” of the virus in terms of whose cells it can penetrate.

> In any case, more contagious doesn't mean more deadly, and that's probably what's most important.

It does mean that because there is more than one strain out there, you may be immune to one but not the other, and that it seems to be more likely that it will continue to mutate and reinfect again and again, just like the common cold or flu. How many courses of this disease can you take, considering each one leads to what seems to be permanent lung damage?

Herd immunity to one strain doesn't mean herd immunity to all of them. Especially when the mutation is on the binding site.

That's how you know he is illogical and nothing he says could possibly be right, so you don't need to listen to him.

Do you have a source for this? It's not listed on any exchange, so I wonder how people are using it.

> This is what you get in a litigious society where the "free market" sets tuition prices.

The high prices were an unintended(?) effect of guaranteed student loans. So, a warped kind of free.

I think that if just the classes were live, no/few exceptions, and the student to teacher ratio was kept low, that would be a big step.

Maybe VR will change things?

Some restaurants have you pay ahead of time.

And MGS4 as of last November... https://www.dsogaming.com/news/metal-gear-solid-4-is-now-ful...

My negatively is just my personality. I didn't single this article out.

Don't tell me how to be.

I was seriously disappointed when I read the article.

> Near future ? Events that defy government’s guidance aren’t allowed,

... on a private platform, so? I hate censorship also, but the more these major platforms do this, the more people will begin to recognize there are alternatives. They're shooting themselves in their own foot, and I for one, am happy to stand back and let them do so.

That's a long laundry list of the non controversial stuff that they said. But after watching the first ten minutes of the 1 hour video, I saw how they concluded that because X % of the people that were tested for the virus were positive, it meant that also, the same X % of the general population already had it, too. Therefore it was no big deal. (I don't know what else was wrong with it, because I cringed so hard I couldn't take anymore) Obviously this is untrue because people that don't suspect themselves to have the virus would not go and take the test. I'm sure if posted here, this assertion would have been laughed off of HN.

To be clear, however, I don't believe censorship is the right approach. Although, since YouTube is a private company, they should be able to do what they want.

Edit: Here's a link to the video: https://www.bitchute.com/video/WLp53rpJ2B7i/

False advertising. The title says recovering your root password, but the article only talks about bypassing having to enter one.

> Well, it's murky, but some easy thought experiments might bring clarity: * Should we raise humans on factory farms, in order to increase the amount of conscious experience? * if so, and assuming that humans pay more attention to aversive stimuli than positive/neutral stimuli, should we deliberately torture them?

> Both propositions are obviously horrible. But why? The answer is similar to why the death of worms < chickens < pet dogs < people < great people.

>Consciousness is a matter of connected/integrated complexity

Can you prove this supposition, though? Would that make the internet conscious, for example? I would think not.

I think the propositions you mentioned seem horrible because of an offshoot of our instinct to form tribes to survive better. It feels bad to torture people and other beings that help us survive, because that's integral to our survival. A lone human being has a much rougher time than a group does, and a group that trusts each other would survive better than where everyone is at each other's throats.

My theory is that human beings need a religion to feel sane. If there isn't an organized one that they accept, they create one of their own. This is why these sort of "common sense" laws of morality (better to not raise animals in a factory) come into being. People need to believe in a higher set of laws than what man can provide, even if there isn't any real justification for them one way or the other.

You are talking about animals that otherwise would not have been born. Therefore the only life you can theorize about is one unknown to us.

Because the restaurant can't combine its orders with those of its competitors in one run. Economies of scale.

He said he sometimes walks. I'm just saying there is a downside that he didn't mention/consider to what he does.

What I do doesn't really effect that.