lez

It has already been so with ppq.ai (pay per query dot AI)

Thank you. I heard the number locally at a privacy conference. No hard data, but I saw them being terrified for 1984 becoming a reality. Even if there's no sentence, the real result is self-censorship, which is NOT shown up in ANY statistics.

It is happening, in spite many won't really deeply believe. Every day 33 brits are arrested for what they say online.

It's happening, and it's time we say no. It's uncomfortable, but we need to do it en masse, right now.

Do not buy backdoored hardware, help others get rid of the backdoors, use anonymous technology to organize protests.

There has to be a line.

You are not alone being hit hard by the pace of the cancer's progression. Dr Makis talks about his shocks lately as an oncologist. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0gIYQCjB_NU

I was thinking the same. Seems HN is now pro-bank and anti-cryptocurrency.

There IS an optional list for ublock origin that tries to get rid of cookie nonsense.

It started a line of thoughts in me. What if the backend keeps the videos around for a longer period of time, and: * regularly checks youtube, and whenever one archived video gets deleted from youtube, it advertises the video ID on a specific set of Nostr relays * have a different browser extension for yt viewers that activates when the user hits a deleted video. * the backend can stream the video for continuous Bitcoin lightning payment until the stream is kept alive.

So you can make some money on free disk space.

Just like the cambridge link he shared: it is a well written article with tons of references describing the source of the information.

You must abolish all privacy from the internet, and even then, you wouldn't be able to stop CP to happen.

Good luck, Mr. Big Brother!

I think such an appliance had already been invented. They are called "trees".

All they need to do their work is corporations leaving them alone.

According to your argument, if Gorhill gets upset at Mozilla, then Gorhill is the problem? Who is the extremist here?

Nostr.

Check primal.net to find that app you are talking about.

Every time I throw away a piece of plastic in the communal bin I think about that it should have never been manifactured from plastic, but from some plant / glass / etc.

For other usecases there is an ipfilter target TARPIT, that does a similar thing on the TCP level.

You can use your OS to do that: Run: `env HOME=~/nyxt-profile-work nyxt` and `env HOME=~/nyxt-profile-personal nyxt` for separating profiles.

Slippery slope fallacy here. Why should I care if my online customer is he/she/they as long as they pay the price? Or if I talk about technology through the Internet? All I want is effective communication with no insults.

I like this point very much: "You can be as vague or detailed as you like when speaking lojban. For example, specifying tense (past, present or future) or number (singular or plural) is optional when they're clear from context.".

LMBTQ movement has came into my mind immediately. I think they would have more success by introducing a new, 'don't care about your sex' pronoun to the language instead of adding a third one that just complicates matters.

For the overcautious theoretic thinkers here, I recommend reading about Coimbra protocol, where 50,000 IU daily is not rare. It can go up to 300,000 IU per day.

At levels above 10,000 IU per day you should take precautions to prevent calcification of the soft tissues: Take Vitamin K (100-200ug), Boron (10-20mg) to prevent calcification. Vitamin A should be dosaged at a ration 1:1 - 1:4 compared to Vit D (same amount or 4 times more of vitamin A) because A and D are anthagonists.

Below 10,000 IU there's only benefits of better health and no risk or precautions needed.

One factor that you haven't mentioned is government-sponsored, man-made weaponized strains of pathogens, just like Mycoplasma Fermentans Incognitus:

http://www.betterhealthguy.com/images/stories/PDF/PHA/2009_0... (1. article)

This is exactly how the most disturbing downvotes happen to me.

When enough people are conditioned to believe X is a dangerous misinfo about Y topic, we are in a bubble and cannot discuss Y anymore openly because of "safety of the readers".

And people are easily conditioned to believe anything, if all media sources, including tech sites are "following the science" by silencing opposing views. This, we've seen A LOT in the last 2-3 years.

Oh, how much I loved those times when google returned the best document on the Internet (still) called "LSD faq". https://erowid.org/chemicals/lsd/lsd_faq.shtml

It states its dangers: Purely psychological hazards, not harmful to body. May release latent psychosis or exacerbate depression, leading to irrational behavior. There is also a danger of foolish or incautious behavior, e.g, misjudging distances or thinking one can fly. Physical overdose is not a hazard, though one may easily ingest more than one may be able to handle psychologically.

Breathwork is something that you should experience yourself to know what's in it for you. Notes won't help. Practice for 3-6 months, then listen to the podcast again. Then, you can relate Huberman's words with your own experience, and not be bored at all.

The writer of the article clearly wants to put negative light on Huberman and in general frightens readers away from taking responsibility for their own health. The tone is suggesting not to waste money on vitamins or minerals or supplements, unless proven deficient. You even put yourself in danger if you do so!

That's exactly what we expect from a Big Pharma sponsored university.

Nobody is right to be "knocked", it's discourse and leaving alone each other's freedoms what could work. Same as with the russians: censoring "knocking" Russian media won't solve anything, just create a more pro-war society.

Even the government has an agenda and not interested in the truth at all.

It's no question he is against any kind of censorship.

Looking at the greyed out comments it seems HN is not pro, but against scientific debate. Questioning science IS part of the scientific method.

https://c19ivermectin.com/ is a very adequate counter-argument to the article, and it's unfair to the whole scientific community that comments are greyed out that mention it.

Taking one person's opinion and projecting it to millions is not part of the scientific method. It is like being angry to one jew and killing 6 million (see Hitler's life).

I would argue that a critical view of vaccinations has always been widely present. We see this now as gaining traction only because they speak up as mandatory vaccines are becoming a real possibility. (otherwise: lose job, can't travel, etc) Maybe it's time to actually have a conversation with them, instead of labelling them and regard them as idiots.

Blame Amazon for coining the term.