zebrafish

Also Peter Zeihan forecasted a lot of this based on demographics and finance in his first book.

Discussion of [2] on /r/covid19: https://www.reddit.com/r/COVID19/comments/kqz7y5/comprehensi...

I love what Wondery puts out particularly in the history segment. Tides of History, American History Tellers, LBJs War, Business Wars, I’m sure there are others I’m missing. Wondery was a staple in my morning commute when that existed. I wonder if new normal will put any downward pressure on podcasts.

I would say that we tend to reduce human flourishing to exclusively being alive. I think the 5x multiplier maybe covers things like loss of liability in an accident, a sense of ownership of the vehicle, loss of privacy or obscurity, regulatory or operational infrastructure costs associated with a switch to self-driving, freedom of choice, etc. All of these have some ultimate impact on human flourishing beyond just a binary dead or alive definition. My opinion is, if these aren’t included in the 5x, they should be.

It’s sort of funny, if not maddening, to see elitists try to appeal to the little guy when their back is against the wall. I feel like this is a common trope. It reminds me of Aurelius Commodus in Gladiator.

I feel like this has more to do with F1’s popularity than DIRT. F1 2020 actually improved their simulation aspects too. Guess it’s off to iRacing for F1 simulation. I can see the FIFA-ization of the next few F1 games turning me off.

Don’t they usually have “styles” of intrusion? I’m certain I’ve read in the past where intelligence agencies could differentiate between Russian backed styles of hacking and Chinese backed styles of hacking. I’m sure Americans have their own style of hacking as well.

I would say it’s also quite likely that the US knows who did this or has known who has been doing it for a while. It’s highly unlikely that this press release wasn’t coordinated by the intelligence agencies to play into some advantageous scenario they’ve drawn up.

The vaccine is still indicated for those who have had Covid.

No, the major difference in the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines are in the makeup of the lipid nanoparticle. Here's an article from Moderna last year on biodegradability of the LNPs they've developed. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6383180/

You should provide sources for claims like this or at least claims stated in this way. The actual real truth is, like most things with this virus that showed up a few months ago, nobody knows for sure.

I think his point, though not well made, is that it’s likely parent is not the first to ask this question and that the researchers have likely already thought about that.

Lipid nanoparticle used to envelope and deliver the mRNA. They’re using different makeups which affect the mRNA delivery and stabilization in the vaccine.

Is it knowingly falsely yell fire? Or just falsely yell fire?

But the death certificate covid deaths match up pretty closely to excess deaths. I'm sure there are a number of those excess deaths that are from postponing care, but surely you don't think that there have been that many excess suicides and untreated emergencies. Surely people are not suggesting that all of the coroners in the country are in cahoots on a conspiracy to inflate covid numbers.

I haven’t seen what you’re describing. I’ve seen hrsACE2 which is recombinant ACE2. That will both provide a target for the virus to latch onto as well as supplement the body’s actual ACE2 to complete the cycle which seemed to be more of the focus.

This vaccine is against the entire spike glycoprotein. Some in production vaccines are only against the RBD (the protein that actually latches onto ACE2). There are variants out there that have been shown to escape RBD antibodies. However, since this vaccine encodes the entire spike, there are other areas that antibodies can bind to. They stated in their press release that the vaccine elicits a Th1, CD4+, and CD8+ T-cell response against both the RBD and other areas on the spike. I think this is the most promising aspect. This means it should hopefully be effective against even escape variants.

That’s correct. This was the only way for the world to pay for WWII and for the US to stem the tide of communism and Stalin’s Russia. Now that the Cold War is over, the US middle class isn’t sure it wants to foot the bill for maintaining this system that no longer seems to provide it much benefit and, in fact, has seemed to harm it. I think the world will see a decent amount of chaos as the US pulls back from protecting global trade routes. Unless all of the other countries of the world want to agree to a global socialistic society, I think the US will likely focus on building back its manufacturing base, opening and maintaining markets for those goods to flow to, reducing the Medicare and Social Security overhead so that this isolationist system can actually survive, and then politics will be focused on traditional values vs progressive ideas. Of course the internet will make this conversation much messier than it used to be in the pre-WWII days.

I’m interested to see how the shifting demographics affect this conversation. The three biggest things that shaped history are demographics, geography, and information flow. Two of these three are going to be significantly different since the last time the US moved towards isolationism.

I honestly believe this is just a return to normal for both sides. Conservatism, before being injected with neoliberalism by Thatcher and Reagan, has been about leaving other countries alone while focusing on protecting American interests. Speak softly and carry a big stick. Conservatives have never wanted US hegemony traditionally. Preservation of Bretton Woods has had to be a focus post-WWII in order to combat the spread of anti-American communism. Now that the Cold War has ended, conservatives have tried to find a way back to focusing on American interests. It’s a delicate balance that has to be struck though. I think this is also the reason for the split in the Democratic Party. “Establishment” members are focused on preserving the neoliberal Bretton Woods status quo. The progressives are focused on doing away with the oligarchy that system has created and moving towards a more socialistic global society.

I believe this is really just a return to the way things used to be, before the US decided to intervene in WWII and had to find a way to pay for the massive cost of that. Conservative and liberal are not opposites like everybody thinks these days. Conservative and progressive are opposites. Liberal and authoritarian are opposites. Both parties are (or should be) focused on the American ideal of liberalism and representative government chosen by the people while either preserving traditional values or advocating for enlightenment values.

However, real life is not that cut and dry, politics are messy, parties don’t fall exactly along these lines and the media plays a part in dictating who should believe what. But in general I think Trump is an indicator that we’re headed for a more traditional alignment of values. Who knows, perhaps a viable third party will emerge from this. A Conservative party, a progressive party, and a Bretton Woods establishment party.

Most of the time, religious people don’t bother with actual theology. If you care to look, there is a lot of critical thinking that went into the Reformation. Both of these examples go against mainline reformed theology in America. Reformed Covenant Theology says God doesn’t punish us with earthly catastrophes and God doesn’t make people sinners. Many times, Christians just make up or guess at their own theology because they haven’t bothered to read the Bible or haven’t consulted with ministers on matters like these.

I don’t see how your anecdotal data can be counted as more valuable than BLS data backed by payroll, benefits, and subsidy data from employers and providers.

This article does make me wonder about the practicality of Medicare for All. From this example, it seems like a great way to line hospital executives’ pockets with taxpayer money. Is the goal to institute a Medicare for All system alongside requirements for everyone to move to a not-for-profit model?

Formula E already exists. As a PR play, other power unit manufacturers may follow Honda. Volkswagen put a lot of pressure on them with their announcement last year. However, I don’t think (and hope) that ICE racing will go anywhere. The engineering challenges and reliability challenges are part of racing that EVs remove from the equation. I don’t understand why EVs can’t have their place as personal and commercial vehicles and racing can keep ICEs in competition vehicles.

I'm not sure what the average poster here on HN makes, but if I assume that it's ~$250K for the employees living in SF, you could move to St. Louis, MO, have your salary adjusted to $225K, get a $20K bonus for moving, and your 225,000 St. Louis dollars would be equivalent to 513,369 San Francisco dollars.

I get that a 10% annual salary hit is larger than $20K for a lot of people, but the cost of living in these areas is over 100% larger than most other cities in the country. I would take that deal in a heartbeat.

I think she’s referring to licensing fees. Not distribution costs.

If your general covid argument is to listen to the science, I think you're not following your own advice with this comment.

If your general covid argument is to listen to the science when the science is in favor of your personal goals and desires, I think that's not called science.

We should be open to questioning apriori assumptions and our subsequent practices. Especially when the apriori had very little ground to stand on considering we're 9-12 months removed from the discovery of this virus and 6 months removed from the implementation of mitigation procedures. There is truly very little evidence and so new approaches or viewpoints should not be dismissed outright like this. You risk being labeled as recalcitrant and bellicose...

I have to disagree with you here, but I am reformed, not Roman Catholic so I may have different beliefs than others you've come across. Christians believe marriage was established by God in the beginning of time. The ten commandments and other laws contain laws particularly for married individuals. Christ presided over a marriage in the New Testament. Paul gives advice in Ephesians as to how husbands and wives should treat each other. Paul's advice in Corinthians is related to his status as a lifetime single, fully devoted to spreading the gospel as an apostle of God, and I think it gives relief to those who don't find a partner in life. I don't think it's appropriate to single out this one section to stand as the Bible's entire stance on marriage. The other examples provide the biblical view that marriage is a gift from God, intended, as all things were, to reflect His glory back to Him. As for marriage in heaven, I don't know enough about the theology around the New Heavens and New Earth to say, but I know marriage is intended to be a picture of Christ and His Church and we will ultimately be "married" to Christ in eternity. Constantly praising and in awe of His Glory. So considering that, I would say there is no longer the need for the covenant of earthly marriage.

"We need to swap the Romantic view for a tragic (and at points comedic) awareness that every human will frustrate, anger, annoy, madden and disappoint us — and we will (without any malice) do the same to them. There can be no end to our sense of emptiness and incompleteness. But none of this is unusual or grounds for divorce."....

"Romanticism has been unhelpful to us; it is a harsh philosophy. It has made a lot of what we go through in marriage seem exceptional and appalling. We end up lonely and convinced that our union, with its imperfections, is not “normal.” We should learn to accommodate ourselves to “wrongness,” striving always to adopt a more forgiving, humorous and kindly perspective on its multiple examples in ourselves and in our partners."

Juxtaposed against the dig at "holy texts" in the first half of the article, the proposed philosophy in this article is literally the core tenant of Christianity. All are imperfect, sin has corrupted relationships, the path to salvation is selflessness and sacrifice, embodied by Christ's sacrifice for us. Christians cannot live this out, garnering a bad name for the broad religion as a whole, but again, as humans, that's sort of the point. Grace is given to those who accept it which further propels them towards giving themselves up and extending grace to others. It's a daily, hourly exercise pictured most frequently and accurately in marriage.

Isn't this capitalism? Labor and capital are two different factors of production. If you're willing to take the pay cut and risk associated w/ joining a startup, but are unhappy with the returns, why wouldn't you just keep your job, invest the $100,000, and get access to the preferential terms given to capital?

I thought most hospitals had hall monitors who were writing people up for not foaming in and out of each room. Maybe that's not everywhere or is just university hospitals.

Speed vs. endurance. Depends on which is more valuable in a given environment.