covidthrow

Based on 2020, about $45,000 profit per minute.

That's not even close to what happened.

The administration left it alone for days saying they'll let private business sort it out. (Default investigation notwithstanding.)

When a bunch of news media started reporting the group was Russian and then insinuate it was a state sponsored attack, DarkSide said something along the lines of, "We didn't realize this would start geopolitical conflict. We will be careful to vet clients more carefully in the future."

Which is kind of silly, because apple varieties demonstrate that people are willing to pay a premium for strains with good taste/texture.

With the exception of selling to industrial food makers, it seems perhaps that marketing—or lack thereof—is the major problem, here.

For me, the effect is less (or possibly just less noticable) after a few weeks. But some coffee or tea gets me going pretty quickly and the effects wear off.

I've always been a slow morning person, so 30-60 minutes to start feeling normal is on par for me, so it doesn't really affect my timetable, but you may have a different schedule in mind.

My morning bowel movements when I take magnesium l-threonate are amazing, however, which used to slow me down even more on a typical morning.

The key is to hunt for commercial-grade appliances. In some cases, they can be found and offer similar form factors to consumer devices, and in others you may be out of luck.

Commercial kitchen appliances, washers/dryers, and flat panel displays can be sourced to your expectations. Just prepare to spend 1.5-3x as much right out of the gate.

I can't reasonably assert that one should or shouldn't.

I just answered parent's apparently rhetorical question, "Who gets hurt if I wear a mask?" Their assumption is, "Nobody," but the truth aligns more closely to, "Maybe somebody."

This isn't a calculus I've thought through in depth, but the answer is almost certainly not "nobody."

Edit: Please keep in mind this comment is made during a particularly divisive time in world history, so my answer reflects that context. I'm not being so pedantic as to suggest, "well every action may hurt somebody." Rather, the effects of the choice is uniquely amplified due to our current social strife.

The CDC has no authority regarding the masking of either vaccinated or unvaccinated people. Its guidelines may influence state response, but they do not supercede or even augment them. Yet they have been treated as supreme authority by many, as you well point out.

I understand the importance of unified messaging, please don't get me wrong. But the media has acted as the mouthpiece of the state for years, and this is yet another example of that.

Why might this be harmful? Can you conceive of why such marriage between the state and the press may not be in the best interest of the people?

Nobody, directly.

Who gets hurt if social structure is affected by the apparent identity of masking? There are plenty of instances of catastrophic social division due to physical differences.

I think your choice should be your own, and based on health and other reasons. But it's pretty myopic to ignore the history of superficial social striations.

You're being downvoted, but it's abundantly clear that at least some view masking as a moral or intellectual signal, and this "othering" is certain to have some impact, either personally or socially.

Furthermore, just as many warned in the early days of the lockdowns that extended lockdown may induce unhealthy behavior—which is evidenced in significantly higher suicide, mental illness, drug abuse, and so on—there are certain to be some undesirable side-effects of vaccinated mask wearing. What those would amount to is not known, but certainly deserves to be explored and expressed.

Why it has been left to the fringe skeptics to dive into these n-th order consequences—some real; some imagined—in the presence of the greatest minds of our times is, quite frankly, deeply disturbing.

It seems the world has transformed everyone into reactionaries, while it should be patently obvious that we should all strive to be rational in these complicated times.

This speaks very poorly for what we've built over millennia, and leaves the lessons of history to floresce in the corners while everyone goes to war with their chosen side.

I can't judge your cynicism, but I can say it's quite suspect that media outlets—apparently—behaved as the mouthpiece of the state:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27145446

Thank you for noticing this.

This is a media blitz, and one may wonder why there are prepared, published stories about CDC guidance that hadn't yet even been published.

I'm sure there are many rational reasons for this. One, indeed, is particularly salient.

Perhaps, but what I've witnessed: (in the broadest strokes of unspecificity)

Rural: "I don't like what the city folk are doing. They should change."

Urban: "I don't like what the country folks are doing. This is how we should change them."

Plaintext transport doesn't matter if at least one part of the payload chain is cryptographically protected/verified.

If you have a machine that's air-gapped and its only IO is strictly humans (read: keyboard/screen, not USB or other electronic means) then your weak point is the human, so center your security around that. You can look at security of lottery machines to get a good idea how that's handled.

But if you're updating the machine with updates, then it doesn't really fit that criteria, soooo....

I fear that you're being downvoted for pointing out the even bigger threat of our national media's exceedingly more dangerous acts of propaganda, presumably because readers either don't recognize it or are wilfully blind to it because it reflects their own biases.

The SolarWinds hack was a devastating attack on our sovereignty.

And so is the other.

McDonald's used to fry their fries in a 93% tallow oil blend until they stopped in 1990 because of hysteria over cholesterol in beef fat.

Guess nobody considered the patties were still chock full of (much more) beef fat, but oh well. (Properly deep fried fries retain only a few grams of oil vs upwards of about 500% more in a single, lean McDonald's patty.)

I don't think this is a "gotcha". I asked for a threshold, accepting that there are varying costs and benefits.

I think that your justification is lacking, however. As though there are no positive externalities for suburban living (there are), or even negative externalities for the other items (there are).

I'm not sure I trust your assessment when you identify only negative externalities to suburban living, frankly.

Sure:

- suburban areas largely "subsidize" the cost of education, which far exceeds the cost of roads and utility infrastructure subsidized by the cities. The quality of schools in suburban areas is also largely higher than in cities.

- suburban areas have anywhere from 1/7 - 1/3 the crime rates of cities—even accounting for socioeconomic factors—which reduces personal and social harm. There is also vastly faster emergency response in suburban areas which save lives and stop culprits.

- mood disorders (anxiety, depression, etc) are about 40% more common in city dwellers then suburbanites, and that's strongly linked to the differing environments.

If the cost and quality of education, reduction of crime, and mental health aren't benefits to society as a whole, I don't know what is.

Please understand, I do not suggest that city living is "bad". I do, however, suggest that diversity of living environments is good, for the individual and for society as a whole.

When you stop subsidizing suburbs, will you also stop subsidizing the flyover states? How about the impoverished? Medicare for unhealthy people? Education? Fire departments?

Like, what is your "I don't care for subsidies" threshold?

These here city folk don't much care for our kind.

Nevermind the shirk for the value of diversity—both geographically and functionally—they've optimized the life out of life and gosh darn it, so can you.

Sure, subsidize things they like—green tech, social reeducation, space travel, even their subscription streaming movie platforms—but those backwards folks out in the boondocks really gotta go.

All 125 million of em.

I'll be honest, I've lived all over the country in some of the most diverse, varied places. And despite the trope of the knuckle dragging country folk, I've never met a more bigoted bunch than city dwellers.

Thank you for clarifying the value of the study.

I responded to the correct comment: the one that effectively said, "if you don't like it you can leave," in response to their parent comment that suggested they're not enthused to be asked to pay more taxes while we have such waste. Perhaps I misunderstood their response, but I take offense to the suggestion that someone who criticizes government should leave instead of utilize the apparatus of democracy.

That sort of response smells of totalitarianism. If you find my suggestion that parent try to understand the flaws in our government's structure passive aggressive, but don't find their suggestion that their parent move to another country anything short of actively aggressive... I'm not sure how to respond.

There's nothing smug or passive about my statement. I do absolutely implore them to understand their government more thoroughly.

I'm sorry we can't see eye to eye on this. (And no, I'm not being passive aggressive or smug with this statement, either... or this one lol)

It doesn't have to be incomprehensible. Just diggable.

Click through to finer and finer granularity. Searchable.

It's just ("just") a data vis problem. I'd work on it but too busy.

Maybe for the future. Could be fun.

Less than 15% goes to roads, schools, and (I assume you refer to when you sardonically say "killing people domestically) law enforcement.

You appear to have a high view of government spending, and that also seems to be because you're unaware of how it's spent and how it's wasted.

Yes, parent was being hyperbolic when they suggested 50% is wasted and 50% to kill people abroad. But I think you're serious that you believe the US government apparatus is somehow responsible with all of our money.

Sure, the government may waste "only" $500 of my dollars a year on asinine programs (like seeing if zebra fish get addicted to nicotine), but there is tremendous waste in how money is allocated, budgeted for, paid out to contractors, and used for assistance.

If you think we run a tight ship (we don't) or have no room for very serious improvement (we do), then I think maybe you're not aware of what's going on.

Please study this more.

I think they're being downvoted, in part, because a lot of people here either assume it is being spent well, or justify it as a necessary evil.

What might be valuable would be for someone to whip up an app that allows you to input the taxes you paid and breaks it down by the federal budget. Kinda like a receipt, but for government.

I did it with a few odd items, once, and it was pretty interesting.

For example, I found that I paid $7/mo for each of our aircraft carriers and $0.02/mo for the president's salary and secret service protection.

It might help people gain better perspective where their money goes. I'm not quite sure why this kind of thing isn't mandatory, frankly. An itemized "bill" may change people's opinions on taxes, especially the most favorable.

I can understand your perspective, but that's only held up if one subscribes to the (erroneous and misunderstood/misused version of) Karl Popper's Paradox of Tolerance:

A tolerant society should be tolerant by default, With one exception: it should not tolerate intolerance itself.

First, at face value, consider two individuals engaging about one's identity preference: Alice wants to be referred to by a non-binary pronoun. Bob doesn't wish to comply.

The direct harm to Alice is a feeling of rejection and othering by another individual. What is the equivalent justice to restore this perceived harm?

To my mind, it would be a likewise rejection of self by an individual, preferably by Alice.

However, it may sometimes result in Alice publicly posting about it or telling their friends about it and a deluge of hate is poured on Bob for his actions. This "punishment" cannot reasonably be perceived as just because the reaction is outsized.

Now, consider a similar scenario in which Bob does not know Alice, and he expresses publicly that he does not wish to recognize alternative pronouns.

The effect may be that Alice, et al perceive offense and are hurt by this broad statement. But Bob did not assert this on Alice specifically, nor anyone. It was an expression of preference (or a rejection thereof).

Still, a mob of offended parties (and their allies) may engage in large scale, directed defamatory remarks. Given Bob's broad and general statement, is that reaction just or unjust?

In order to perceive it as balanced, one would have to subscribe to the Paradox of Tolerance: that tolerance of intolerance is intolerant. However, the applicability of this philosophy implies that an expression of a desire not to recognize alternative pronouns is not just a personal expression, but a directive to others.

I'll leave it up to the reader to consider both sides of that application, but let's presume that an expression is, in fact, a directive to others that they, too, should reject alternative pronouns.

Now Bob's statement can be perceived to affect individuals of whom he's never met, thus suggesting harm to a number of people. Is a mass response of directed verbal harm a just reaction to his expression?

If one believes that implicit harm could be found, then a response of direct harm by many people would be just. But the Paradox of Tolerance doesn't, actually, support this perspective. (Even though it's often cited.)

For harm to be justly foisted on an individual who simply has or expresses intolerant views, those views must be actively harmful. As Karl Popper wrote:

I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise.

To "keep them in check by public opinion" does not mean—in our context—through force, as he explicitly addresses "suppression [read: force] would certainly be unwise."

So the thought remains: what is a just response to a broadcast of preference contrary to another's preference? My thought would be: a likewise broadcast of preference in favor of alternative pronouns. Note that this does not explicitly target Bob, as he did not explicitly target an individual.

So when the parent expresses the "extreme" view of "insanity", they are likely following the outsized, intentional acts of violence/vengeance against people who did not, in fact, directly harm the group engaging in this retaliatory act.

For one to justify the force of many against the implicit harm enacted by an individual, one has to stretch the bounds of justice to allow realized damage in response to their perceived harm.

Thus, parent's perception that those on the side of the pronoun discussion are "extreme" and "insane" is—taking their words intent and not literally—quite reasonable.

For that not to be reasonable, one must find it reasonable, instead, to engage in outsized, real, harmful actions in response to an expressed opinion.

If one believes it to be unreasonable to seek to damage the career—and by extension, life—of someone who prefers to be identified as "they/them" for exercising that preference, then one must also find it to be unreasonable to enact such harm to someone who chooses to exercise their preference of not referring to others as such.

If one perceives that one such reaction can be characterized as "extreme", then it is reasonable to perceive the inverse behavior to be characterized as "extreme". And if one chooses to reject the balance of this logical equivalence, then one is behaving illogically.

And if one justifies the use of this extreme response illogically, then it would be reasonable to characterize this behavior as "extreme" and "insanity", colloquially speaking.

I welcome reasoned responses.

I agree with this characterization.

I have an extensive analysis of how I came to the same conclusion here:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26603166

I don't. I haven't really found any, and this is the conclusion of my own observations over the last year.

Prior to lockdowns and work from home, I didn't pay much attention. Once I was forced to stay inside, I tuned in a lot more. As I noted the polarized views expressed, I intentionally sought countering expressions.

Over the year, I ended up following a wide spectrum of people on social media and consumed articles by a variety of publications.

From there many patterns emerged. Larger entities—unsurprisingly—influenced the topics du jour. Sometimes they were unique to that segment; sometimes retorts to another group's topic.

I noted the frequency of real, substantiated information went down over time, by all sources. From "sources close to the matter" to right-wing influencers making grandiose claims, practically every group fell into this pattern.

Ironically, the most extreme groups (relegated exclusively to social media) were among those that made the least exaggerated statements or observations. (From Antifa to Proud Boys.) They seemed to stick most to their prescribed beliefs and didn't really utilize the inflammatory stories and rhetoric from traditionally more moderate sources, such as mainstream media and influencers.

By that same token, it was the more middle-aligned groups that became more polarized and extreme, but even that was skewed more heavily to the left of center.

If I had to characterize it, I'd say the most extreme political sources maintained their extreme views and spoke softly. The middle-most sources often far exceeded inflammatory rhetoric of the extreme edges.

I'm not sure if this is because extreme viewpoints were simply unspoken among the extreme groups, but the intensity with which they spoke was much more moderate the further out from center they got; not exactly an inversion, but darn near close.

While Antifa accounts would do deep dives on police tactics or communist groups would discuss building fund pools for other communists out of work, left-leaning mainstream media—like the Guardian—would run story after story about the existential threat of white supremacy, for example.

For most of the year, left-sided groups were on the offensive, while right-sided on the defensive. When the election insanity took place, the offensive/defensive roles briefly switched, but then both ended up taking an offensive position up until the 6th. After that, both sides slowly ramped down.

In broad strokes, it became apparent to me that mainstream left-sided media was the most expressively extreme, both in rhetoric and reach. Right-sided social media reached a similar extreme following the election.

While the narratives emboldened by Trump following the election were by far the most extreme, the impression that I got from the right-side was "talk big", not "act big". On the flip side, left-sided extremists were "talk soft" and "act carefully": they would devise plans and act on them.

Of course it's impossible to suss out the intention of any given individual. There were, no doubt, individuals on the right that wanted to overthrow the government that they perceived to be insurgents of democracy, just as there were individuals on the left that wanted to create lists of Trump supporters in order to punish them for their crime of supporting the brash president.

The president's behavior—especially amplifying absurd claims of election fraud espoused by Sydney Powell—was unquestionably dangerous. By the same token, the persistent vilification of the right-wing—to such extremes as to characterize them as white supremacists or Nazis—by the left-sided mainstream media is also unquestionably dangerous.

As someone who holds values reflected across the political spectrum—though admittedly subject to bias—I am far more concerned about the utter cultural monopoly held by a single party than I am about a handful of undereducated "patriots" that felt their election was stolen from them.

If I could counter the concerns raised about the threat the "insurgents", some n-hundred people breached the threshold of the capitol and were met by practically no resistance inside... and what occurred? Not a single shot was fired by the "insurgents", nothing was burned down, nobody was taken hostage or overcome.

On the flip side, the "damage" done was reported by the cultural monopoly to be some tens of millions of dollars. However, sussing out the actual figures, there was about $30,000 damage to historic artifacts, and some $10,000-20,000 miscellaneous damage. The remainder of the tens of millions in damage is the cost of the existing + additional security services, including a fence that costs hundreds of thousands a month. (I'll leave it an exercise to the reader to figure out how much their normal security detail costs, already.)

This utter violation of truth by the most powerful institutions in the world strikes me as a more flagrant threat than the "insurgents" who accomplished exactly nothing of substance.

I bring this up because both sides are filled with ignorance and dishonesty. But certain groups with a certain threshold of power engage in expressions of extreme views that are hard to unpack from truth.

It's easy to take a member of Antifa with a grain of salt, just as it is a legitimate white supremacist. It's much more difficult for people to distinguish truth from false narrative by groups who proclaim to be the arbiters of truth.

After seeing characterizations from these groups over the last year and how they characterize what occurred on January 6th, along with the rhetoric among the people engaged in the "insurrection" and extensive footage captured during the event[1], I find the extreme characterization of the events on that day to be exaggerated. In short: I believe at no point was the apparatus or continuity of the US government under any threat. At all.

Of course, this is subjective. And I am under no illusion that I'll change anyone's mind. But I will assert that a thorough review of each of these groups will yield a vastly different reality than what each present. And, within this reality, it will be shown that the only extreme behavior exists among the institutions and individuals that espouse extreme distortions of truth to the determent of everyone.

I know this doesn't really answer your request, but I hope it characterizes how I came to these conclusions. I think this is one of those cases where one truly has to look through what's passed around to find the truth. Not to confirm an implicit bias, as is usually done, but to really try to understand what's going on.

At this point, I treat every source and group as suspect. For all major claims, I now try to find counterpoints from the other side, and then further try to find as much real data as I can. Only then do I feel that I understand what's actually happening.

I treat every source as hostile to truth, because after a year of fact checking, they pretty much all are.

I strongly suggest you do, too. Fact check the fact checkers, as it were. The very presence of such extreme views should warrant skepticism.

1: There was, at one point, an excellent compilation of some 2 hours of footage arranged sequentially of the events on January 6th. It was available on YouTube and put together by a left-leaning individual (so not concerned with making things "look good"), but has since been taken down. It shows a much more tame (but not free of violence) series of events that run very contrary to the extreme characterizations among some major media outlets.

Not really, if you consider the source of these beliefs.

One group got their perspective from the cultural monopoly in media and academia.

Another group got their perspective from mainstream conservative media.

Another group got their perspective from social media trolls, charlatans, and grifters.

Another group got their perspective from cross-sectional media and/or social media.

There's some blending between groups, of course, but given the highly polarized nature of the last few months and years, they're mostly distinct.

As a cross-sectionalist, I believe that the extremity of all perspectives presented are hugely inaccurate.

Of course, this perspective is not welcomed here. In part because most that visit HN subscribe to the cultural monopoly's narrative, and in part because the general dislike of a highly abrasive, tactless, outspoken former president.

But, trying to be as unbiased as I can, I stand by a rejection of the extreme perspectives. I hope nobody feels offended by what I write here.

In my (limited) experience, mistakes among LEAs is more along the lines of they have data that doesn't match a real person. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but getting people mixed up isn't something that I've seen.

There's a lot of entropy in first/middle/last names, DOBs, SSN, driver's license, etc. so accidental typo matches just means bad data, not some other person.

(Obviously, intentional identity theft notwithstanding.)

FWIW, I used to work for a background check company and they operated exceedingly ethically. If there was a hit, for example, they would reach out to the given agencies and confirm that it was actually that exact person before reporting the results.

Far as I understood it, that was exceptionally rare in the industry. Not sure how prolific their customer base was or if they're still active.