nvm0n2

Sure. Most parts of the world don't have the government run the entire healthcare system. It's an obviously bad idea everywhere To everyone except Brits.

The reason indexing services don't work synchronously is because it would cause file IO to get far slower than apps expect, and that can break user interfaces and cause unexpected slow downs. There's also no real reason for it to be synchronous in most cases.

I think macOS/Darwin does have write barriers like you want.

You are correct, it couldn't and in fact 1850 has traditionally been referred to in climatology as "pre industrial", but this site is really the wrong place to try and actually talk about science. The intellectual curiosity fans here don't like it at all.

The NHS doesn't have a problem with too few patients anywhere. Just look at the chaos of the recently opened dentists that saw massive queues down the street, where police had to intervene to control the crowds. The reason: the dentist was new and accepting NHS patients.

A system that can't even provide dental slots without needing police to break up fights is a catastrophically failed system and it is a huge problem of the UK that people have loyalty to this dying corpse of a department.

You got lucky. My father went to a&e recently with breathing problems due to some non COVID respiratory virus. He was struggling to breathe. They had zero free beds and he stayed overnight on the chairs waiting to be admitted. Eventually they found him a recliner.

And then of course you have the constant strikes and inability to even see a doctor at all unless you win the game of phone lottery.

The NHS may have a simple user interface, but it doesn't actually work when you need it so that's not very helpful. And the idea this is a Tory problem is propaganda. The NHS budget only ever goes higher yet service gets worse. Dumping ever more money into this third world system is never going to work.

It's talking to the author of the article, who rather ludicrously diagnosed the problem with the Messenger as it being not biased and ideological enough.

This isn't actually COVID specific. It's a nasty and frequent tactic on this forum, where someone makes strong assertions about one side of an argument whilst simultaneously claiming that the other side can't be allowed to speak because it would be "fighting", a "flamewar", a "trash fire", "not curious", "tedious" or whatever. It's an attempt to manipulate the site rules to suppress debate and is itself anti-curious.

Concrete examples from your comment history: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32104731

"Given the weak sourcing, it feels like this article, in particular, flunks the "divisive subjects require more thought and substance" test."

(on a Bari Weiss article arguing that health authorities weren't really driven by science, something they now admit themselves was true).

In other comments you asserted that COVID vaccines can't possibly be dangerous but also said, "Convincing suspicious vaccine-skeptics of the value of vaccines is not the goal here. We're not a public health service; we're a forum for curious conversation. Tedious rehashes of antivax arguments aren't curious; they're just tedious."

If you don't like such discussions, ignore them! Nobody forces you to click through to the comments section. But this tactic of trying to define disagreement with your very strong opinions as not "curious" enough is tiresome. Other people do in fact want curious conversation, which will sometimes mean conversations about topics that you don't like. I'll say it again: leave those discussions alone. Stay away by all means, but don't interfere with other people's curiousity.

Thank you to sibling ggdG for presenting even more evidence.

But I don't get your reply at all, wtallis. "the next few paragraphs should be about backing that claim up with convincing evidence and explanations" - which is what the stuff about the Diamond Princess, SARS-1 and Hong Kong was about? Evidence and explanations for why the droplet model was wrong. Do you see that? The connection is that the claim exposure as simple as inverse square law on distance assumes no aerosol transmission, which is incorrect.

It's hard not to feel that if people didn't keep flagging these kinds of discussions off the front pages, the wider HN community would be aware of all these basic facts which as the sibling post points out, is actually not controversial and hasn't been for years. HN is supposed to be about intellectual curiousity but the aggressive flagging behavior talked about by others in this thread means that too many posters here are stuck in a timewarp where it's still Jan 2020.

That isn't clear at all. You seem to be saying that if you anticipate that people might question other people's competence or motives, or in your view a discussion won't lead people to think the right thoughts ("encourage actual understanding") then you flag it to try to ensure nobody can discuss it.

But you also say that making it undiscussable is also not about making the topic untouchable. That's just playing with words, isn't it? It's exactly what you're trying to do and exactly why you're flagging it.

This particular case is really egregious. Fauci has said this draconian policy "just sort of appeared", yet you damn anyone questioning his competence or motives as lacking humility? What would it take for you to allow criticism of this guy?

It doesn't get less curious that "I try to bury discussion before it even happens and can't even explain why". You should be ashamed that you spend so much time here yet fundamentally do not get the rules.

Empirically they are not. What you mean is that you don't like to be faced with the reality revealed by these stories and the comments.

But this attitude explains a lot of the abusive flagging that goes on here. Stories get flagged because they make people feel ick, and they feel ick because they previously took positions that were wrong. So they flag. And when asked, why do you flag, they say "I don't know, I just don't like it", forgetting that the site exists supposedly to help drive intellectual curiousity. You may not like these stories, but other people do find them useful and you should not interfere with them.

If you interpret Germany to mean German government mandate then I can see how it would seem misleading, but if you interpret Germany as the people who live there, then 45 random companies (that the journalist could find, there will be more) is actually pretty good evidence of a society wide exploration.

How can you have both brutal capitalism and regulated markets? Those are normally presented as opposites, as in, "we regulate markets to soften the impact of raw capitalism".

China isn't really a capitalist country. It's more capitalist than it used to be in the 70s, but as this refusing-to-liquidate nonsense shows, the basic rules of capitalism don't really work there. China ignores many things that are required to really do capitalism properly:

- IP rights aren't enforced

- Other kinds of property rights aren't enforced (see the ARM subsidiary that simply declared independence)

- Staying out of private business (see Ant Group)

- Many companies and industries are state owned

- Industrial policy is still the standard in China (compare to the USA)

- Markets aren't informed (rampant censorship, bad data)

and so on.

The source of this stuff is PubPeer, a website where people can comment on papers and do post-publication peer review. A quick rummage through this site is the quickest way to destroy your confidence in academic science for good. There's no direct equivalent of Photoshopped Western Blots for computer science, but if you want a laugh search for papers generated by SciGen, a perl script that makes joke papers:

https://pubpeer.com/search?q=scigen

Or for a more serious example of problems (medical AI):

https://pubpeer.com/publications/ABB8F161E6691210C44545FF899...

The authors report an AUROC of 1.00. This is extremely high and implies perfect discrimination between cases and controls, which seems unlikely given the highly heterogeneous nature of ASD and suggests some sort of data leakage

...

The highlighted point estimates are not in the middle of their confidence intervals, either by a modest amount (yellow) or by a large amount (pink). In some pink cases, the point estimate is not inside the CI at all.

...

I have rather strong concerns regarding the apparent absence of a hold-out dataset.

She has a long history of defending and covering up on behalf of people who do forge data though:

https://www.karlstack.com/p/the-curious-case-of-claudine-gay

If the US military can't manage a feat of logistics that local doctors offices routinely manage then it can't possibly win a war.

the drop in white recruitment has baffled Army staff and isn't easily explained by any one particular factor

... after a whole article full of explanations, none of which involve surveying white men to ask them why they don't want to sign up anymore. Classic journalism.

Sadly not. The Flynn effect appears to be obsolete. In many countries it stopped in the 90s and IQs have actually gone down a bit since then. Example:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect#/media/File:Sunde...

It's not just Dana-Farber and that Alzheimer's lab. This type of fraud is endemic in biology. Occasionally it gets noticed. Behold, another identical thread on the same site about the scientists of the Breast Cancer Research Foundation from four years ago:

https://forbetterscience.com/2020/01/20/the-wizard-men-curin...

Featuring a scientist who was rumbled for image cloning, and then submitted still more Photoshopped images in his corrections (accepted by the journal, of course, because why wouldn't you let a detected fraudster have a second try with higher quality fraud).

First comment: "I was at Cornell….you are still missing at least my ex-Boss and collaborators."

Israel's government doesn't care about PR hassle from the usual suspect. We may notice that they've had plenty of that lately and it did not stop them at all.

Even if doing what the ICJ wants is easy, there's a strong reason not to (from their perspective) - it implies the ICJ should be obeyed and legitimizes them. But why should Israel do that? It's just another leftie NGO from Netenyahu's perspective. Start following what those guys want and soon they will have to do nothing even as Hamas attacks again and again.

That wasn't their choice ...

No we don't. There are laws against certain symbols etc ... the limit is in actually trying to overtake the state and abolish the constitution

Yes you do. A core part of Nazi ideology was the Führerprinzip. They openly did not agree with the concept of democracy. If you don't talk publicly about your desire to overthrow democracy then you aren't a Nazi, it's as simple as that. The AfD do not want to overthrow democracy, therefore, they are not Nazis.

It was a court case - but the court decided to drop the case

Do you understand the difference between prosecutors and the court? Because it feels like this understanding is missing here. None of the sources I can find mention the courts at all. There was going to be a prosecution of someone who insulted Höcke and the prosecutors - who are not the courts - decided not to, citing their own politically biased opinions.

But if the prosecutors don't prosecute, it never goes to court and never becomes a case. Right? The opinion of prosecutors has no legal weight whatsoever, that's the whole point of having courts in the first place.

Or do you have another explanation why he wants to turn 180 degree in the view of the 3.Reich?

You've assumed he does, but that isn't obvious at all.

I would assume that if he objects to both allied and Nazi bombing being a war crime, he just doesn't accept that the concept of a war crime exists at all. This is a very common perspective outside of the left, because the notion of a war crime assumes there is such a thing as international law that makes it a crime, which in turn assumes the existence of an international government that can make and enforce such law. But there isn't any such government, therefore international law does not exist, therefore there is no such thing as a crime that countries can be found guilty of.

The left doesn't like this idea, they're big fans of the idea of world government and thus tend to enthusiastically support courts who pass "judgements", even when they aren't enforceable by anything.

I find both perspectives understandable. People on the left often don't, which is why you extrapolated from his position into assuming he must be a Nazi.

Inflation rates as quoted by governments aren't always informative because they tend to exclude many prices that are the most affected by money printing e.g. equities.

It has a multiplier effect. Government wants to spend money without raising it in taxes, forces the central bank to "loan" it money which it does via "printing" (increasing the balance of the govt at the CB accounts). The government spends the money on salaries and pensions which is then deposited into banks, which use those deposits to justify even more lending.

It doesn't really cause problems. Academic economists claim deflation is destructive, but it's a misanalysis caused by extrapolating from a tiny number of samples and ignoring all the counter evidence.

If you have a fixed monetary base and the economy grows, all that happens is that things get cheaper, which is what you'd intuitively expect if a society gets wealthier. Economists claim that this will trigger hoarding cycles but this is a strange almost pseudo-psychological claim. It doesn't happen in reality, where there are many examples of prices falling continuously over time in a sector without it causing recession within that sector.

Civilians control but don't manage the military. They control it, in the sense of setting the goals, but they don't generally manage things after that.

The equivalent here would be the customers.

It should be "trust because you verify". The other phrases don't really make sense.

The risk is that this simply makes their culture problems worse. Governments aren't famous for turning around failing private companies.

And then there's, y'know, the whole DEI angle. Being acquired by the US Government isn't going to make them more likely to promote white male engineers to sort things out.

So to be clear, the court did not declare him a Nazi. But close enough, that people may call him that.

That wasn't a court case, it didn't even go to court. If there are so many, why pick one that wasn't a case? Prosecutors dropped a potential case against a protestor and said it's not a criminal insult because it's (roughly translated) subjective but evidence based?

Germany has laws against being a Nazi. Either there's strong evidence he is one, in which case there should be a criminal finding of fact, or there isn't, in which case calling him that is surely slander. There's no First Amendment in Germany to protect such people. The prosecutor's press release goes off on a political attack on Höcke. They seem to have decided that he's not actually a Nazi but it should be OK to call him one anyway, because they don't like his politics. Very bad levels of political independence from such an office.

The claim about Dresden being a war crime is one I've seen many times. Even in Britain there are people who have argued that. It's like arguing the US shouldn't have nuked Nagasaki. How is that evidence of being a Nazi?

I'm not gonna spend the time to translate more of this. None of this stuff seems legit. The left always call everyone who isn't on their side a Nazi, this whole thing with this guy looks like more of the same. The Nazis openly called for the end of democracy and praised dictatorship. Where is the AfD doing that? This guy doesn't even run the AfD.