pcbro141

Your country is currently deporting people for speaking ill of a certain special country in the Middle East (and soon stripping citizenship).

Find a spouse with a job.

Because internet advertising works.

Depends on the product being advertised. I don't see how you can compare a product that enhances someone's life to a disease.

Pretty sure every big tech company is Asian-overrepresented. Apparently almost 75% of tech employees in Silicon Valley are immigrants, no doubt the vast majority are Asian (East Asian and Indian).

https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/01/17/h-1b-foreign-citizens...

You just close the door when you exit the Waymo lol.

He's been promising "full self driving in a few months to a couple years" since 2015.

Reddit comment with his predictions:

https://old.reddit.com/r/SelfDrivingCars/comments/n6nsmt/elo...

Waymo already beat Tesla to Full Self Driving. I use Waymo frequently in SF and it's great. It makes this Tesla robotaxi with an undefined release date not very interesting.

Many people say the same about Google/DeepMind.

I don't mean to say they are cheating. I'm saying, in my experience, a lot of 'dating' nowadays in Gen Z is ambiguous. Zoomers call them 'situationships'.

Basically they're dating for a while and having sex, but never have a conversation about exclusivity or 'making it official'.

So in such a situation, one side might be under the impression they are 'boyfriend/girlfriend' because they are seeing each other frequently for months, having sex and so on, but the other side might think they're still just 'casually dating' and assume they're both free to play the field/'date around' still.

So it's not necessarily cheating. There's ambiguity/poor communication skills and one side thinks they're in a serious relationship, while the other thinks it's casual and therefore is seeing other people.

While many Gen Z women identify as bisexual, very few are actually dating women. Most bisexual women have never dated or done anything sexual with a woman.

It's a fallacy to assume because a man can get with women, he is not emotionally stunted. Plenty of women are dating/sleeping with emotionally stunted men by their own admission and complaints. Many of the attributes it takes to get with a lot of women (especially arguably the most important: be hot) have very little correlation with being emotionally intelligent or a good person/partner to women. Hence the many "f-boy" archetype experiences many women have and complain about.

Non-monogamy is a thing, especially since most 'dating' is ambiguous/casual now. Multiple women can share the same 'boyfriend'. Twice as many young men are single compared to young women.

Many young women these days don't realize their 'boyfriend' just sees them as an friends with benefits and is seeing multiple women simultaneously.

--

"Most young men are single. Most young women are not."

https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/3868557-most-yo...

https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/02/08/for-valen...

Andrej Karpathy: (radioactive emoji)

https://twitter.com/karpathy/status/1726478716166123851

Going nuclear?

I didn't say men are owed anything.

I'm saying perhaps a major part of the reason so many men are single is not necessarily because they are lazy losers who refuse to level up like you suggest, but because they can't meet modern women's unrealistic standards or women just aren't that interested in them even after they've leveled up.

Many men can 'level up' to the maximum realistic extent, and still have few women interested in them. That doesn't make these men lazy losers who refuse to put in the work.

I'm not suggesting they are owed a woman for leveling up to the maximum realistic extent, I'm just saying it's very unfair of you to call them lazy losers for their effort not bearing fruit.

That does not explain why men and women rate attractiveness so differently. Both men and women watch TV and consume media.

I agree with you that many guys today struggle with dating because they haven't done the necessary work to be good partners, but the problem isn't that "contemporary life doesn't encourage self-improvement". The "problem", if you even want to call it that, is that women prefer being single over a bad relationship with a crummy guy. For the first time in history, women have the economic independence to walk away from a bad deal, and guys have up their game as a consequence.

---

What if there actually are plenty of men who have 'stepped their game up' and are perfectly qualified peers to women and would make suitable partners, but the women just have wildly unrealistic expectations?

Or the women just aren't that interested in men in general?

Could those be factors, rather than men just being so beneath women?

What if they want nothing at all? As in, women naturally aren't that attracted to men but through historical male domination, women's level of attraction has been mostly irrelevant historically.

Exactly. They always talk about men as if we're all losers, and women are perfect.

It's always about how men need to change to appease women's desires, and never about how women need to change in any way.

Could be he actually strongly believes in those ideologies, like millions of other people do.

Could easily make it free for all Americans for relative pennies compared to how much was allocated to foreign countries in the last year.

Going to assume some YC affiliated person has been declared 'problematic'/'cancelled' on Twitter, and parent commenter thinks it's a bigger deal than it is in reality.

Destroy the company how? They have tens or hundreds of billions in cash. Couldn't they just discontinue the product and move on if it flops?

https://twitter.com/SECGov/status/1665779371108335618

SEC just tweeted the quote

You don't have to be a believer in a16z to find this list of AI resources useful.

Interest rates.

It was a US F-22. The US and NORAD are not mutually exclusive.

I think women naturally just aren't into men as much as men are into women (in general, at a group level). They're also more likely to choose to be alone than be with someone who doesn't meet their standards. So any society where they "don't need a man" (no financial/cultural/patriarchy pressure) is going to have the same large incel issue over time.

Genuinely don't see what he's said wrong here. He's just quoting a legitimate scientific review? Do you feel he misrepresented what's in the study?

From the article you linked:

A bombshell new study by a distinguished team of Danish researchers led by Prof. Christine Stabell-Benn suggests a surprisingly nuanced answer. In the randomized trials of the covid vaccines, the adenovector-based vaccines, including the AstraZeneca and Johnson & Johnson vaccines, reduced all-cause mortality of study participants relative to people randomly assigned a placebo. Indeed, the reduction in mortality is larger than expected from the Covid effect and may suggest additional beneficial “non-specific effects” from those vaccines against other health threats.

On the other hand, Stabell-Benn and her colleagues found no statistically meaningful evidence in the trial data that the mRNA vaccines reduced all-cause mortality. The numbers of deaths from other causes including cardiovascular deaths appear to be increased in this group, compensating for the beneficial effect of the vaccines on Covid. Stabell-Benn is keen to stress that the sample is relatively small and is calling for further investigation, and also that the study took place during very low levels of Covid, so the relative advantage of protection against Covid would have been smaller at that time compared to at other points in the pandemic.

However, these preliminary results stand in sharp contrast to the unambiguous message from public health agencies and governments worldwide, which granted emergency authorization to the vaccines based on evidence from the trials that the vaccines reduce the likelihood of getting symptomatic covid. From a purely scientific perspective, preventing symptomatic covid is an interesting outcome to study. From a public health perspective, prevention of covid symptoms is not as important as prevention of death or disease transmission, which the randomized trials did not study. Dr. Stabell Benn and her colleagues have now looked at overall mortality for the first time.

At the very least, the plain implication (since both sets of vaccines are available) is that public health authorities should have recommended the cheaper adenovector vaccines over the mRNA vaccines all along for most patients.

In other words, the international move to de-authorise the AstraZeneca vaccine across Europe and elsewhere looks like it may have been a mistake, and that AZ was actually a better option than the Pfizer or Moderna vaccines.

It offers a potential contributory explanation for the better overall mortality outcomes in the UK (which overwhelmingly used the AZ vaccine) than much of continental Europe (which phased out the AZ vaccine) after the vaccine programme in the second half of 2021.

From the study: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4072489

To examine the possible non-specific effects (NSEs) of the novel COVID-19 vaccines, we reviewed the randomised control trials (RCTs) of mRNA and adenovirus-vector COVID-19 vaccines reporting overall mortality, including COVID-19 deaths, accident deaths, cardiovascular deaths and other non-COVID-19 deaths. For overall mortality, with 74,193 participants and 61 deaths (mRNA:31; placebo:30), the relative risk (RR) for the two mRNA vaccines compared with placebo was 1.03 (95% CI=0.63-1.71). In the adenovirus-vector vaccines there were 122,164 participants and 46 deaths (vaccine:16; controls:30). The RR for adenovirus-vector vaccines versus placebo/control vaccine was 0.37 (0.19-0.70). The adenovirus-vector vaccines were associated with protection against COVID-19 deaths (RR=0.11 (0.02-0.87)) and non-accident, non-COVID-19 deaths (RR=0.38 (0.17-0.88)). The two types of vaccines differed significantly with respect to impact on overall mortality (p=0.030) as well as non-accident, non-COVID-19 deaths (p=0.046). The placebo controlled RCTs of COVID-19 vaccines were halted rapidly due to clear effects on COVID-19 infections. However, the data presented here argue for performing RCTs of mRNA and adeno-vectored vaccines head-to-head comparing long-term effects on overall mortality.

I don't see what's so crazy in his article, doesn't seem like a gross misrepresentation of the study.

Sounds like as far as the mRNA vaccine, he was skeptical of the need to vaccinate young children given the extremely low COVID mortality rate in kids and concerns about myocarditis. Doesn't sound all that crazy.

It's kind of expected some people will be skeptical about such an unprecedented situation (mass lockdowns, school shutdowns, quick vaccine rollout, mRNA being a relatively new technology at scale etc). Honestly it's a good thing to have scientists who are willing to be skeptics within reason, scientists make mistakes all the time and it's good to have other scientists checking them.

Also important to remember some of what was considered 'crazy' and 'misinformation' and got people banned is now accepted as fact (like vaccines don't stop the spread, myocarditis risk etc)

https://www.salon.com/2022/12/16/why-elon-musk-and-right-win...

Bhattacharya is expressing tacit agreement with the panel's premise that "the Biden Administration and pharmaceutical corporations continue to push widespread distribution of mRNA vaccines on the public, including children as young as 6 months old, through relentless propaganda while ignoring real-life adverse events." Bhattacharya is also agreeing to work with individuals like Florida Surgeon General Joseph A. Ladapo, who has spread misinformation about mRNA vaccines. Additionally, in May he argued the data on whether COVID-19 vaccines save lives is "surprisingly nuanced" and that it led him to believe "public health authorities should have recommended the cheaper adenovector vaccines over the mRNA vaccines all along for most patients."

tangent: but are any of you still getting boosters? Like 4th, 5th shots and stuff. Seems a lot of people gave up after the 3rd shot (1st booster).