yupper32

...that article says exactly what I said. The CDC was initially wrong, and after some good science and convincing, they changed their stance.

That's how science works... and numbers like 5 microns which have been ingrained for a while take some real work to change.

What exactly is wrong with my statement?

What's your point? Smaller companies have a better chance of success? Why would that be?

> Will the lion's share of contracts then go to U.S. Big Pharma?

What is this comment supposed to mean? Do you want the contracts to go to the small mom-and-pop pharma companies?

Monkeypox, if it becomes a real big problem, will likely be very different than Covid-19. I think if we learn anything its that we should let the experts do their job and just listen to their advice, and not automatically think that everything we learned from Covid-19 will transfer over. It's pretty straightforward to do that, but we haven't even mastered that yet.

I think the biggest failure wasn't the CDC being wrong at first, it was society not being receptive to changes. It's impossible to be correct every single time. The only thing they can do is say what they know so far.

That's their point, they said "do business in the US". You're saying the same thing.

> Why isn't enough to just say you don't like it? That's fine. You don't have to. What is tiring here, to me, is all of the completely idle and evidence-free speculation about why other people merely "say" that they like it.

Imagine every once in a while there's the same man screaming on a busy street you frequent. Most people around you watch and comment on the beauty of the man and his actions.

After a while of ignoring it and moving on with your day, you eventually have to stop and say "what the fuck are you all talking about?"

Everyone looks at you like you're crazy.

"You know, that man was a child prodigy. He mastered classic singing styles and is now showing off his abstract work"

"You don't have to get it. I find it powerful."

"Art is art. It's playful. He's expressing his emotions. Not everything has to fit in the lines."

The man continues to scream. You comment, "My 5 year old does this every day. Why is this special?" You're desperately looking for answers. Maybe there's something you're missing.

"I doubt your 5 year old could scream like this."

"There are millions of 5 year olds. Only one of Him."

The man continues to scream.

> Art is expression, art is play, but most importantly, art is free.

Of course, and I'm not offended that Picasso decided to create his art the way he wanted to. What I'm talking about specifically is art popularity.

I'm also not say that there's no one that legitimately would be able to pick Picasso's work out of a lineup and genuinely find beauty in his work. You very well might be in that category.

My main point is that it seems that some artists such as Picasso (and I'll throw in Rothko as well since I saw them mentioned here) are artificially popularized by people trying to seem high class/intelligent.

> you can categorize Picasso as a genius purely on his influence of other artists that follow him.

That's a dangerous game. You can surely think of plenty of counter examples here in history and modern times.

Exactly. I'm currently getting downvoted elsewhere for comparing crypto-bros to art enthusiasts.

Are some crypto technologies cool and useful? Sure. Are some artworks nice to look at and/or thought provoking? Absolutely.

But some are just hyped by people who are all-in on it, without any actual merit. And convincing someone otherwise is like convincing a devout religious person that there's no god. No amount of convincing is going to change their mind because they're all-in.

How much of art popularity is people wanting to feel in the know, and desperately trying to find reasons to enjoy it?

If you say Picasso was a genius, then you're automatically accepted into a "smart" or "high class" or whatever group of people. If you criticize, then you're ostracized.

It's exhausting to criticize, because the arguments for are so lacking in any substance. You get arguments like "art is about art", "its subjective", and "there are lots of people who paint pretty pictures, but only one Picasso". All actual arguments from this thread, all completely lacking in substance. Another good one: "if you're talking about it then it must be good". Barf.

I truly do not believe even 50% of people who claim to like Picasso actually like Picasso's paintings. I'm very confident the majority are people who say they do to fit into a group.

IMO thinking Picasso is special is more "tech bro" than not. Specially crypto-bros. Every time I see someone defending art like this and its value, it reads exactly like people defending crypto.

It's not really a good question, and I suspect he knows that. Twitter can simply:

1. Sample x twitter accounts

2. Have humans review the accounts manually to determine if they are bots. This isn't perfect but can be good enough.

3. Extrapolate.

You'll come up with a reasonable percentage with this method to share with shareholders, but you can't use this method at scale to actually fix the issue.

...Car culture is to blame? Suburban culture?

We've had "car culture" and modern suburbs for many many many years, including a very large time period where none of this was an issue. Blaming it on "car culture" is completely off.

Could you just.. do it anyway?

What are they going to do? Kick your kid out? Call the cops? Unlikely in my part of the world, at least.

Or because there are like 3 people total who care, and it's not worth building the feature.

Not everything is evil.

Idk, if I got an 8-figure severance for being fired, I'd be pretty damn happy. I would say that definitely does not suck.

> I actually spend a lot of time choosing/researching fonts for my slides and documents.

A massive waste of time.

Why do you think you're the only type of rater?

Your ranking is a signal that goes into the algorithm, not the actual end result.

> Many communities in larger towns & cities have tons of offline learning opportunities for groups.

Yeah, schools.

You use twitter in a different way than the vast majority of users.

Twitter users follow people and see their posts. Their feeds are mostly their followers posts.

You ever look at the youtube home page when you're logged out? It's absolute garbage. It's also not the way most people use youtube.

What is "regular liquidity events"?

We have to remember that a lot of people who criticize twitter don't actually use twitter.

This happens so often with so many things.

Facebook: "I haven't used Facebook in 10 years, and never bothered to unfollow things on my feed back then, but it sucks! The feed is just garbage!"

SNL: "I haven't watched SNL since the 90s. It hasn't been funny in years!"

Expensive restaurants: "I went to one Michelin star place in 2007 and it was like 3 bites of food! I don't know why people bother!"

> What you say gets invalidated because you used the wrong password.

Is this a common occurrence for you? It has never happened to me.

I'm skeptical about whether it's actually and issue or mostly a hypothetical issue.

Sorry but did you just say one of the reasons you left google was the memegen moderation team? I can't imagine that being a legitimate worry that would impact my employment decisions.

It seems there's a group of people who are too far in the other direction too. When I heard that it's preferred to say "allowlist" instead of "whitelist", do you know what my reaction was?

"Sure, whatever."

And I moved on with my life. It has zero impact on my day to day. The pushback reminds me of people who deadname others on purpose. Like, who cares? Bob wants to be called Sally now? Sure, whatever.

> All of your comparisons assume that bikes and cars are the same, but they're not.

I think you're starting to get my point. They're not the same, and don't belong together on the same roadway. We can't ban cars, so we should ban bikes.

Cyclists sharing the road with cars is not the only option. Not biking at all is a very valid option.

This seems like an aggressive response which doesn't address any of my points.

I support (mostly by voting for and donating to candidates who support these):

1. Free public transportation.

2. Expansion of public transportation.

3. Proper bike lanes (which properly separates bikes from cars, if we're going to have bikes on the road anyway).

4. Higher wages, so people can survive in the meantime.

All those address your concerns without ordinary bikes sharing the road.

All I'm saying is that bikes sharing the roadway with cars doesn't make sense to me for the reasons I wrote above, and that I'm surprised more people don't feel the same way.

E-bikes might be the only think to get me off the side of wanting to ban bikes from roadways. I really don't understand why there isn't a larger group of people who dislike bikes riding on roads.

1. You don't have to be licensed to bike on a road, but you do for motorized vehicles. This doesn't make sense.

2. Bikes can't keep up with traffic. I have to sit behind bikes trying to get up the SF hills daily, and either have to perform semi-dangerous passes or wait while cars back up behind me.

3. Bikes break road laws way more frequently than cars. Blowing through red lights and stop signs like they don't exist, which is dangerous for the biker, the cars, and especially pedestrians trying to cross the road.

E-bikes with a biking test/license would solve most of my issues.

There are defaults for all sorts of functions. find() functions on an array in many languages use some default. Parameters often have defaults when not set. Strings often have a default encoding.

The vast majority of the time, the default works well enough. Why make things more complicated than they need to be?

It also has the added benefits of helping more junior engineers when reading the code. "Cycle sort? What is that doing?" "Insertion sort? I was taught that was inefficient! I should spend time updating this code to a better sorting algorithm! My tech lead would love my initiative."

Or we just use sort(), and we all move on with our lives.

It's relative.