HN user
Is this really a proper analogy? Child pornography is the content and the internet is the medium. For what OP is talking about, cryptography is the medium, not the content. We're moving towards banning the medium here, and what types of legitimate content enabled by it will we be throwing out?
This is a good example of an irrational reason: I'm scared of a choice that has a very small chance of producing myocarditis, so instead I'll make a choice that has a greater chance of producing myocarditis.
This isn't true.
"Healthy boys may be more likely to be admitted to hospital with a rare side-effect of the Pfizer/BioNTech Covid vaccine that causes inflammation of the heart than with Covid itself, US researchers claim."
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/sep/10/boys-more-at-r...
I think assuming that it's out of "spite" is an example of not realizing how "your side" might be causing the division.
There are a lot of people who have already had covid and now have antibodies, who were also never in, and continue not to be in, a risky demographic. The risk for these people is very, very low already.
On top of that, the vaccine is not entirely without risk. There have been many reports of side effects, specifically heart issues in young males. There have been some deaths.
The counterargument might be, "okay, that may be technically true, but the risk is very, very low." And the people who do not want the vaccine, who are not in a risky demographic, might say in reply to you: exactly, that's the same thing we're saying about the virus.
Of all the conspiracy theories out there, this one, to me, has the highest coverage-to-interestingness ratio. It just seems like a teen hacked an AV system and did a goofy presentation. I'm surprised that type of thing isn't more common, and I'm befuddled as to why this one gets so much attention.
I don't believe the study is comparing absolute numbers, it's talking about risk on a per-individual level.
Likely not:
"Healthy boys may be more likely to be admitted to hospital with a rare side-effect of the Pfizer/BioNTech Covid vaccine that causes inflammation of the heart than with Covid itself, US researchers claim."
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/sep/10/boys-more-at-r...
Is it possible to determine by comparing to an unvaccinated control group or is vaccination a requirement for play?
I've heard stories about the difficulty about payments at AirBnB, where the suppliers are local people across the globe in different languages with varying levels of access to financial services. It's one of the things that inspired the Coinbase founder, who was an ex-AirBnB employee, to start his company.
I see. But I think the question at hand raised by OP is infected vs vaccinated, not infected vs uninfected?
My understanding is that the incidence of myocarditis is much higher in a COVID infection than from any of the vaccines.
That particular quote seems to be comparing infected to non-infected, not infected to vaccinated.
Might depend partly on age as well:
"Healthy boys may be more likely to be admitted to hospital with a rare side-effect of the Pfizer/BioNTech Covid vaccine that causes inflammation of the heart than with Covid itself, US researchers claim."
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/sep/10/boys-more-at-r...
This will be the tipping point for many to finally question all the info they get from the corporate media.
Only if they actually get to see the reality presented to them somewhere. I fear that most people still won't. If they've been in the bubble for years, there will be nothing indicating to them that they should venture outside of it this one time.
You understand that I am not saying that black skin is the cause of the way people respond in police interactions, right?
When I say "If a certain demographic were ... 4x more likely to respond to a benign pullover with violence", that is a post-fact observation, with the demographic being the specific collection of people pulled over.
Why would you interpret it the way you did? Holy shit. I feel like we're going into the "math is racist" territory.
it’s just a discussion about the fact that non-white people are more likely to be subject to LEO violence
There are answers, but you're ignoring them.
Hm, no, good correction. I might be thinking about a separate article from the same time period that I've lost track of.
TBH I don't understand what you're saying. I'm having the same debate on 2 threads now so here's my quote to the other person who posted the same link:
"I looked at it and the study doesn't account for anything. For example, if a certain demographic were 2x more likely to die in an encounter, but 4x more likely to respond to a benign pullover with violence, then they're actually 2x more likely to be treated with less force than their actions require.
This is basic, the study (at least on my glance) appears to not account for anything like this at all."
I looked at it and the study doesn't account for anything. For example, if a certain demographic were 2x more likely to die in an encounter, but 4x more likely to respond to a benign pullover with violence, then they're actually 2x more likely to be treated with less force than their actions require.
This is basic, the study (at least on my glance) appears to not account for anything like this at all.
Also the source isn't everything but its political leanings are somewhat-important as this type of misdirection that I've just showed here is used all the time to craft narratives around statistics, so even when you're crafting leans in a certain direction and you still can't tell the story you'd like, it's a strong indicator that the data more distinctly show certain patterns.
Ok sure, but in turn your comment ignores/doesn't contain any data on the statistics of crimes committed by race or what behaviors that lead to escalation appear more among different races.
The NYTimes however did research it and found that "this data does not prove that biased police officers are more likely to shoot blacks in any given encounter": https://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/18/upshot/police-killings-of...
The NYTimes, which is a left-leaning institution to begin with, released an infamous paper on race-based police killings itself in 2015 by a black researcher and author, and found that "this data does not prove that biased police officers are more likely to shoot blacks in any given encounter." [0] People were angry that taking a look into the data did not say what they wanted to here.
And as another poster said [1], even if there were bias, that does not equate to likely, in absolute terms. The idea that you're essentially sending a black person to death, or rolling the dice on their life, by calling the cops on them for nonviolent crime, is ridiculous.
[0] https://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/18/upshot/police-killings-of...
Sure, here's a thread with sources: https://twitter.com/leonydusjohnson/status/12674663458447400...
Time and time again we see someone get called on a welfare check only to be shot to death
You really need to pierce your bubble and ask what else happens that might not be shown to you. The news isn't real. Not really, anyway. Every single outlet has a bias and "lying by omission" to shape a narrative is common.
For example, did you know George Floyd is hardly the first person to have died under the knee of the police officer? At least 2 times before it, it was a minority officer killing a white man. You can watch it with your own eyes:
Here's Tony Timpa being killed this way: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_c-E_i8Q5G0
Here's Joseph Hutcheson being killed this way: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnsE6_lVkrE&list=LL&index=50...
Another thing that's been so sad to watch recently is peoples' disbelief in how different the reality of the Kyle Rittenhouse situation is from how it is presented to them on the news, when they simply watch the actual trial. E.g.: https://twitter.com/sarahbeth345/status/1458593872557133825
We care less because for the most part everyone is much better off than we used to be. Material wealth is easier to acquire and with less physical effort.
"“When you call the police on a Black or Brown person, there’s a good chance you are putting their life in danger. I don’t think that is a thing one should do lightly.”
Statistically this is False. It's driving a lot of current policy pushes and the people who repeat it most are the ones who pay the most lip service to fighting dis/mis-information, but it's not actually true.
A lot of people say things like this, but then with their actual voting power, elect to put leaders in place who pursue exactly these outcomes.
The real issue is that one company is in a skewed position of power due to a broken marketplace
Nobody seems able to identify what the unfair advantage is.
The truth is that this is the nature of social networks: the successful ones tend towards Monopoly. Why? Because more people attract more people. Access begets access. The value of a network grows with the square of its size [0], and higher-value networks attract more users.
You can't break up a social network without starting to make rules about who can associate with who, which is a fundamentally anti-free position.
The problem is not Facebook. In its absence another would take its place. The "problem" is human nature, and that we were not designed cognitively for the types of networks that technology now enables for us.
We should focus on education, friendship, and real-world experiences. Legal fights against social networks in general or Facebook in specific are futile.
Guess it depends on your own reason and interpretation then, and we all have an excuse to fall back to our existing biases and pre-chosen sides.
Further, according to a DC metropolitan police report, the killing was unnecessary and unjustified:
https://securitystudies.org/report-shows-babbitt-not-a-deadl...
I'm just asking for a tapered edge :D The new bulbous rounded edges almost seem passive-aggressive from apple. Yes, prioritize power, and with whatever remaining ability to make things pretty that you have, utilize it. When you can but don't, that's unattractive. Is there a specific reason for the brick look? I'm not sure that we know there is.
Personally I dislike this bit. Thinness isn't everything, but it's something. I don't know that the new models really needed to look as brick-ish as they do, and the previous design was certainly sexier.
If it was just a setup to eventually providing an answer she already had in her pocket, is that the same thing really that's being discussed? Willingness to look stupid and earnestness to find an answer?
I think by "around the same time" he probably just means "plus or minus a few hundred years, before the Europeans". Point being that native collapse happened at large scale in multiple areas prior to European settling.
Yes... I understand. My questions was why this seems so desirable to have when it requires carrying more equipment, and seems like an unlikely scenario most of the time.