bronzeage

It's also a problem that the camera could have degraded vision that's inadequate for self driving yet report no problem at all and continue driving as if everything's fine.

I'm pretty sure your situation isn't the only way the vision can be obstructed, maybe liquids, or even bird poop can also degrade vision.

The point of the criticism of "disinformation" is to allow Facebook to increase their censorship. It's like the caricaturial movie scene of someone screaming "somebody stop me". Facebook want to be criticized of "disinformation" so that Facebook gets the excuse to employ censorship and "fact checkers". Those fact checkers will always conveniently focus on exactly the political issues with the most controversy. The value of political censorship is quite higher than normal ads.

They are just selling political censorship in some corrupt way (you'll never see an official transaction, but there are deals behind the scenes).

I'm from Israel. I got the vaccine. The goalposts here shifted to a third booster shot. They already admit the first two doses become ineffective very fast, contradicting the early research that actually got me to trust and take the vaccine in the first place. The stated effectiveness of the vaccine also went downhill. I also had some unusual vaccine side effects that I will not discuss here because I prefer my privacy and nobody believes random internet anecdotes anyway, I'm only going to get criticized for sharing.

I'm not going to get any booster, even tho they are heavy handedly mandating it here, with absolutely zero data. They don't even allow you to confirm a healthy antibody count, strengthening the suspicion that this isn't about "waning antibodies count" at all.

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. I had my suspicions that this medical tyranny would keep on going on even when the medical data is non-existent, and that most people will not even notice the difference. That suspicion was fully confirmed. I personally apologized to my anti vaccine friend that he was right.

It's going to take a detailed research on why the original Pfizer trial was wrong on the effectiveness, what is the amount of antibodies required to be safe, and then I would see if I meet the criteria, if being recently vaccinated meets the criteria, if they understand the causes of the effects, if the booster actually gives reasonable advantage. And maybe then I'll consider it. If they don't put the side effects and the errors of the phase 3 trials under investigation I might not even vaccinate me or my future kids against other diseases as my trust of this industry was broken by the Pfizer experience.

There's a third option of actually engaging in the discussion. You know, actually investing the efforts of silencing anti-vaxers into explaining the truth instead. And it's not like that option is unfathomable to the media. When the truth is aligned with their agenda, they are already experts in "fact-checking" and pointing out where their opponents are wrong.

The rules of debate say it's always better to refute the main argument and to address their issues. If you resort to ad-hominem attacks, appeal to authority, or just plain censorship, to me it is a confession that you do not have better information to add to the debate. Which implies that I'm right.

The most important part of censorship is the censorship about the extent of censorship. The most important propaganda is the propaganda that justifies propaganda itself.

As part of that propaganda, the most important modern propaganda is the "fake news" narrative. The narrative that somehow everyone who gets their information outside the mainstream media is a conspiracy theorist who is too dumb to think critically and probably as dumb as people who think 5G causes coronavirus and earth is flat. The narrative that even speaking about vaccines or coronavirus is "dangerous" in itself and that the best way to deal with vaccine / lockdown / covid policy criticism is to bury the head in the sand and fill your ears with wax and cut their tongues. People are being trained to firewall themselves to true information coming against the mainstream consensus. They are being trained to consider their friends - who they personally know to be smart and rational - as conspiracy theorists and stick to the narrative of the media.

People who are convinced in their truth do not seek to silence a dialog. You only seek to silence conversation when you know the results will be against you.

Door opening is common, I had several cats do it. One cat learned to vomit in the sandbox. We didn't train him to do it, he somehow understood the general vibe that we don't like him vomiting and decided to go to his sandbox to do it (and picked up on the positive feedback from that).

I wish we knew how to make them do that because he wasn't the only vomiting cat.

Cancel culture is out of control. It's disgusting. This isn't some Nazi. People who are against abortion think that it is murder. You can disagree with them but it's not like they are coming from some morally unjustified position. A person speaks out against what he thinks is murder, and ends up cancelled and resigning.

I love eating meat, I don't see it as murder but I would never agree to cancel someone because he decides to speak out his mind that meat is murder.

After all the propaganda from big tech talking about the dangers of misinformation, they don't care a little bit when their misinformation actively hurts people's lives.

It's Rate of death for vaccinated * probability of catching covid < Rate of death of vaccinated * probability of catching covid-19 + probability of dying from vaccine.

As probability of catching covid-19 decreases, it makes less sense to vaccinate, and if the probability of catching covid-19 is 1%, the vaccine death rate needs to be 100 times smaller than the reduced covid-19 death rate. For young people I think the numbers are against the vaccine.

If it significantly stopped spread that would be different - but the new variants statistics make it pointless at 39% only efficacy.

At this point the numbers are just sadly against vaccines. I'm saying this as a disappointed vaccinated young person. I wouldn't have taken it with the currently known numbers.

In 1876, as a young student in Austria, Sigmund Freud dissected hundreds of eels in search of the male sex organs. He had to concede failure in his first major published research paper, and turned to other issues in frustration.

What a Freudian story, looking for male genitals. I wonder what would Freud say about that...

Honestly, most of the outrage would be prevented if they just limited each government to just attacking their own civilians. Who would outlaw them then, those same governments?

Their real blunder is allowing cross-country hacking, and now they have to answer for the fact the morocan government abused their tool against Macron.

As for countries with no human rights abusing their citizens, any outraged American should start right at home with how their own government deals with peaceful protesters of 1/6. Human rights are practically an illusion, and governments abusing citizens is nothing new, NSO is literally a drop in the ocean, the only real difference between countries are whether the press is free enough to even report what's happening.

(Hint to Americans: your is not free, either).

Note that interestingly, momentum and position in orthogonal directions do commute and don't have uncertainty.

You can know both a particle position in the x direction and it's momentum in the y direction with 100% certainty. Some intuitive based explanations would give you the wrong impression here.

Another way of looking at it is that momentum operator is equivalent to derivation, and derivation and multiplying by x don't commute: d/dx x - x d/dx = 1. So, depending on the order in which you measured (first momentum then position, or first position then momentum) you get a different result.

Yes. It feels pretty right that you can't claim you're not editorializing if you decide to censure the leader of the country because of arbitrary reasons, like claiming coronavirus came from a lab is a conspiracy theory.

What happens in India is actually the opposite, it's the government requiring the censuring.

I'm always on the side of free speech. It shouldn't be up to Twitter to decide if coronavirus came from the lab, or if "mail in ballot fraud is very rare, as few as 0.001%" (a completely bonkers notion that was also later debunked, but served to prevent any discussion before the election despite it's absurdity).

Why would there be a ban on gas self-service in the first place?

They are cooperating with the Tether scam, so they are a scam too.

You literally answered it yourself: you find the suicide more believable today. If you find it more believable today, and their motivation is obscuring the murder, this is the perfect timing actually.

Like real art and politicians "book deals" of boring books, and hundreds of thousands for a single "lecture".

Why is it even legal to conduct LSD experiments? There was some animal testing post earlier, but giving people illegal consciousness altering drugs seems so much worse.

They can't be PoC because their higher than average success contradicts the narrative of victims.

Crypto anarchism (the movement to move all the trust to crypto and leave nothing to the government) is suffering from Dunning-Kruger effect in their understand of the legal system, it's purpose and nuances and generally the fact that the real world has to base its law system around humans interpreting the law because there are simply no better solutions, and the legal system came where it is after years and years of evolution and if simple inflexible rules would be a viable solution you wouldn't need a legal system.

It's the same flawed logic that usually opposes government access to communications, even with warrants, as if they are something sacred (while the government can literally jail you up if you break the law, even freedom isn't sacred, and it's much more vital than communications). You need to respect the rule of law and the fact that there are simply no better solutions than the legal system - it is just like decades old code that has been refined to deal with all the nuances of the real world.

It's not a Ponzi scheme because in ponzi scheme you deliberately use late investors money to pay early investors.

What happens in cryptocurrency is fake-exchange scheme. Tether is a fake currency printed in unlimited way by bitfinex which is also an exchange. By pretending tethers are real dollars you create the appearance of a stronger market for cryptocurrency than actually exists. It all rests on increasing the number of tether in circulation. It will fail when there is a run-on-the-bank on tether.

That's a clear strawman. There's a big difference between no privacy at all, and no privacy only in those cases requiring government investigation. There are also restrictions of police investigations by law, requiring warrant, and other stuff that are the real way you're supposed to be protected from the government.

The real problem is that while some western government have rule of law and can be relatively expected to be just, other governments are not, and it's bad setting the precedent of government intervention because many non western governments can't be trusted with it.

This is a war where one side, Israel, attempts to minimize both sides casualties, while the other side, Hamas, tries to maximize both sides casualties, including their own people. Purely from intentions perspective, it's clear who should be criticized.

Looking at their product, I wonder how many of these kind of vulnerabilities are still open and exploited by them. Wouldn't make much sense for them to burn such a useful vulnerability which is required for their product unless they had something better.

Financial exchanges need to prove to you that trades really do happen with real money at the prices they say it happens, and that the order book isn't cooked. If I were to open an exchange for shitcoin, and show you pretty graphs and fake orders to buy shitcoin, would you believe me when I tell you that's what shitcoin is worth? no. Trades with tether are exactly that: trades with make belief dollars. Bitfinex prints tethers and shows you orders for trades in tether, while most of these trades are probably bitfinex trading it's make belief currency with itself. You should be the one requiring evidence that the trades are real.

Just because they held appropriate balance at one point in time doesn't mean they are actually sitting on dollar reserves corresponding to tethers. They could have borrowed to reach these numbers for the report.

The current state is still that the majority of Bitcoin volume comes from tether, and these tethers aren't regulated and required to exist the same way dollars traded for stocks are required to exist. They already mixed tether reserves with other funds in the past, don't trust them to suddenly stop.

The real issue with Bitcoin is tether. Tether printing is practically responsible for almost all the gains in Bitcoin. Just look at Tether volume versus Bitcoin volume and tell me you trust bitcoins valuation when it's backed by make belief tethers.

When you can print make belief dollars, in volumes that were never proven to exist, and pretend trading them for Bitcoin is the same as trading dollars, then of course Bitcoin can arbitrarily rise. The scale of the scam is huge and regulators completely miss it.

The day regulators finally ban tether (because printing dollars should be illegal), you're going to see Bitcoin crash spectacularly. The reason Bitcoin defies all expectations is because it was never supported by real dollars.

because sin and cos have simple Taylor series, but only when measuring angles in radians. sin(x)/x at zero is one only in radians. Just multiplying by the angle is a good approximation of sin for low angles, again only in radians. I bet even an alien mathematician will describe angles in radians.

Again you're using sham accounting. Where did that methane come from? From the food. It came into the food from the air. There are again no net emissions. Just like a company requires expenditures to generate revenue. This is misleading. That carbon was borrowed from the air and then returned. Net emission zero. You only increase carbon in the air when you take carbon from elsewhere and put it in the air. Otherwise it's a cycle with net flow zero.

Correct me if I'm wrong but that agricultural impact happens for vegetarian food as well? And lab grown meat also requires the same agricultural costs, there doesn't exist some magic chemistry that creates food from raw materials without agriculture.