flagrant

This does not support your claim. It's pretty clear that you didn't have the evidence before you made the claim, and you don't have it now.

It ascribes a characterisation to homeless people (that they would prefer to get drunk than have a home) that there is simply no evidence for. The comment blames homeless people for their own destitution purely based on the commenter's preconceived bias against homeless people.

Thanks, but I didn't ask for evidence that "alcohol poisoning is 5x higher in the homeless population", I asked for evidence that "people are mainly homeless in Finland because they would prefer to get drunk."

Sure, fine. It's still a hateful, unevidenced comment about homeless people that can't be justified.

No.

I'll be happy to retract the "hateful" comment if anyone can provide evidence that "people are mainly homeless in Finland because they would prefer to get drunk".

Without evidence, he stated that all homeless people in Finland are homeless because they would "prefer to get drunk". I don't think it's incorrect to describe this as hateful, because it's very clearly informed by a bias against homeless people rather than any real evidence.

This is the equivalent of jumping into a discussion to say that Black people are poor because they "keep buying cellphones". It's not a serious intellectual comment, it's cloaked hatred.

Note that the "homeless" people in Finland are mainly people who refuse to accept support from the social welfare, this is because they prefer to get drunk instead of spending it on food and rent.

When you posted this hateful nonsense, did you think nobody would bring you up on it? Can you provide anything to back up this assertion?

Completely false.

What on Earth does that have to do with anything?

But this is about profit. Profit is by definition money that wasn't required to create the vaccine.

Next it talks about how businesses profit from this. While true it's also totally misses the point. The economist wrote an article on how the world is vastly underspending on solving this problem.

Is it supposed to make me feel better that not only are we not spending enough on the problem, but what little we are spending is going to line the pockets of Big Pharma instead?

Liberalism is centre-right. Please remember that Adam Curtis is British, the American political spectrum doesn't really apply here.

the assertion that alan greenspan and a few others were all in league together because they read Ayn Rand.

That's a pretty facile reading of it. It might surprise you that Curtis is centre right himself.

Then it switched to being a Chromium based browser in 2013 so they could utilize the Chromium plug-in ecosystem.

Opera switched to Chromium because they didn't consider it profitable enough to keep developing their own engine, and laid off a large portion of their browser developers. It was entirely about money and nothing to do with using Chrome extensions.

I think what he's driving at is that your point relies on the assumption that neoliberalism is left wing, when this is not true.

I've seen no reliable sources make the claim that Parler was built on WordPress. To the best of my knowledge this stems from a misunderstanding, and Parler had a WordPress blog which was compromised, but that is a completely separate system to the main social media site, which is not WordPress.

Self closing tags are perfectly valid in HTML 5 and there's nothing wrong with using them. Even if the parser ignores them, they're still useful for the reader. HTML 5 does not require you to close your paragraph tags either but most people still do it because tag soups are hard to understand.

Is the part we are disagreeing about what “not _yet_ showing any change” means?

No, it's the meaning of the entire statement. Your translation means "coronavirus did not result in an increase in deaths in 2020", whereas my translation means "the spread of coronavirus may be wider than the number of excess deaths in 2020 indicates". The meaning is wholly different, it is saying something orthogonal to the point you want to make. It says nothing about whether the number of excess deaths is higher or lower than usual, just that you cannot take the number of excess deaths and determine the spread of coronavirus from it.

Please keep in mind though that the claim you’re responding to was that 2020 the year didn’t see a significant increase in deaths - it was a very average year to die as a Swede.

I am keeping this in mind because I'm trying to point out to you that you have no data for excess deaths in 2020 so you cannot make this claim.

In [0] it states that 2020 is an average year in deaths

It does not.

In [1] it shows averages for the previous years in numbers summing while years up.

This still has no relation to deaths in the year 2020. You cannot tell anything about deaths caused by coronavirus from data that only goes up to 2019.

"The growing spread of Coronavirus in the community is not year showed any change in the number of deaths in Sweden"

My translation is "The increasing spread of the coronavirus in society is not yet visible in the number of deaths in Sweden", meaning, "there may be more coronavirus cases than we can tell from just looking at deaths". A significantly different meaning to "coronavirus did not cause any change in number of deaths", which is in any case flatly contradicted by the same article which describes increases in excess deaths in the second quarter.

For what it's worth, I am willing to believe that despite the massive increase in excess deaths in the second quarter, it could be offset by reductions in excess deaths in other quarters. So if you do have data that specifically compares excess deaths for the last few years feel free to share it. Currently you haven't got anything to support your statement.

The citations do not support what you say. Citation [0] says only that excess mortality in specifically the third quarter of 2020 was not higher than previous years. It says nothing about the excess deaths for all of 2020.

Citation [1] is data for 2019, before COVID-19.

Why did you cite these articles and pretend they say something they don't?

To put it simply, the UK government is continuing a decade of placing their and their friends' financial interests ahead of the interests of the country. Many own properties that are at risk when nobody's going to work, or are indebted to party donors who do. The idea is to put up with people dying (after all, austerity caused the deaths of over 100,000 people in the UK, and that was apparently acceptable) as long as the economy keeps going. Of course this will fail in the long term, and the result will be a collapsed economy and a lot of dead people, but long term thinking has never been a requirement to be a Conservative government.

The sample container separates from the spacecraft during the Earth encounter. The spacecraft performs a manoeuvre to return to an escape trajectory while the container falls to Earth. There's a graphic showing the re-entry procedure at http://www.hayabusa2.jaxa.jp - the 'TCM' points are where adjustments are made to trajectory, the final one sending the spacecraft back into space.

What you've done is taken a hard unsolved problem and replaced it with an even harder unsolved problem, and you think that constitutes solving the problem.

If we have research level technology now, it stands to reason that people will keep researching and improving it. So "Never" becomes "not for a while yet until we perfect this technology"

You cannot assume that just because we are researching a technology that it must be possible given enough research. We may do the research and find that it is not.

And for the foreseeable future, yes (much of the) equipment would still need to come from earth.

The problem is that this is already essentially impossible. The mass requirements for a commercial scale mining operation are astronomical compared to the things we have been putting into space so far.

You have (somewhat) covered the fuel requirements by bringing in ISRU. That's fair, but I would remind you that ISRU is a research technology and is not even close to producing enough fuel fast enough to supply a single mission to the Moon, let alone massive commercial mining operations across the solar system. But fuel is not the whole story, is it? You need equipment. That's coming from Earth no matter what way you slice it.

"If this pipe dream is too remote, why don't we try this even more ridiculous pipe dream?"

As the article points out, Hayabusa "spent six years and 16.4 billion yen ($157 million) recovering a single gram of material".

What is the plan for commercial scale mining? How do we get the equipment there? How do we get the material back? Scaling up increases the requirements by many orders of magnitude to the point where it becomes unviable.

It's not enough to simply point to launch systems that can put 100 tons into orbit and recover a single gram of material and say "look, it's possible". Scale is what makes it impossible.

This should be obvious, but there is so much wishful thinking out there about this that essentially boils down to praying that we discover a magical propulsion system that doesn't follow physical laws. It's simply not feasible, and a basic understanding of gravity and the rocket equation should disabuse anyone of the notion that we will ever be mining in the solar system. This also applies to anyone suggesting we might leave the solar system at any point, at least while maintaining life on board.

What is the functional difference between destroying an artifact and keeping an artifact in a private collection where nobody can see it, from the point of view of humanity?