wavepruner

Just want to quickly point out how much of a lifesaver delivery services are for many disabled folks. As someone who is disabled I find it very strange how critical abled people are of these technologies, even going so far as to use our situations in arguments against it without actually getting our opinion on it.

Onions are high in sulfur, which is quite reactive with metals. Probably related to how it works.

what a great find, cheers!

Please go to therapy and learn about healthy boundaries. You have a savior complex that hurts the people you supposedly want to help.

I'm not telling anyone to do anything. If people want to get vaccinated that's fine by me.

I do not believe that I'm "protecting" people, and I certainly would not waste my time trying to protect able-bodied people who are fully capable of protecting themselves.

But I do work hard to help disabled people when they ask for help, particularly those with similar experiences to myself.

To be clear, I think vaccines do far more harm than good. I agree that serious, acute vaccine injury is very rare, but I would argue that a slow, debilitating degradation of health from vaccines is very very common. There is a rapidly growing body of research and real-world data indicating that vaccines significantly reduce our immune systems ability to defend against evolving viral threats. Short term, some vaccines appear to be a good idea, but long-term they may be a net-negative.

I was nearly killed by a series of vaccine injuries. It was excruciating and slow. I'm alive today because I'm a biochemist and was able to pursue experimental treatment.

I'm going to do what I need to survive. I will not be a sacrifice for your fake greater good.

There are several practical options for defending against respiratory infections. There are no practical options for defending against serious vaccine injury. We either cure ourselves or our lives are destroyed. We do not get any healthcare.

There is a daily, constant conversation about the benefits of vaccines. I don't need to bring that up. It is implied.

There are people whose lives have been destroyed by vaccines. That isn't nothing. It seems they are just too much of a minority for you to care. Or you don't believe they exist. And that's why I asked you that question, because we can't have a conversation without understanding where each of us is coming from.

If you don't want to talk then don't talk. But don't attack and insult me. I'm not making you do anything.

I'm curious, do you still not believe that vaccine injury is real? The FDA and CDC have now repeatedly acknowledged it's existence with the COVID-19 vaccines.

If you do believe that it's real with respect to the COVID-19 vaccines, what is your reasoning for advocating for "restraining" people who are concerned about this issue?

Uber hasn't raised their base rates in my city for years now. I drive for Uber, and it's more profitable than ever.

This is because of surge pricing and higher volume. Even when there is no surge profitability is quite good as long as it's busy enough for back to back rides.

If you're patient and ride during slower times you pay a similar amount to what the price was years ago.

Github will host all forks.

I just wish there was a home for forked Wikipedia articles. The analogy isn't perfect. Whatever.

The longest time horizon discussed in the paper is 100 ticks, or trades. Likely less than a few minutes.

I wish Wikipedia allowed unlimited forks of each topic.

Imagine if a FOSS software project somehow banned all forks and forced all developers to compromise on every little thing.

No, I think history and present times makes it clear that this is an inherent property of democracy.

In democracy without any limitations (like the US constitution), a little over 50% of constituents can do whatever they want to any minority comprising less than 50% of the population.

There are plenty of modifications that have been tried, but none of them solve this fundamental problem...

...because when push comes to shove the modifications are ignored. E.g. the US constitution is routinely ignored without consequence for those in power.

I don't think any political system humans have invented exists in reality. Our political systems are a veneer over the reality of consensual interaction sprinkled with generous amounts of violence, manipulation, and control tactics that have always been used to maintain power. I would argue that since these control tactics are inherent to human behavior, a focus on prioritizing anyone's ability to defend themselves is the best solution.

Democracies vote to oppress minorities all the time. Democracy is not the solution.

I think you're living in a media bubble.

There are a plenty of rebuttals to the Tether criticism, but on sites like Hacker News no one bothers anymore. It's not worth dealing with the vitriol and downvotes to even try.

That being said I also have concerns about Tether, but I think they are way overblown.

I don't think you can change human behavior.

But you can accept it and design systems with that in mind.

So I guess I do like theory. But I think having conversations about how to force humans to behave differently is a waste of precious resources.

Human nature is to help disabled people when there is a surplus of resources, and to not help when there's not enough. So I think talking about what should happen during times of scarcity is not a good use of resources, because disabled people will always be abandoned when the resources do not exist to care for them. Nothing can change that.

Better to focus on building systems that reduce the severity and duration of bad times so they are short lived and prosperous times are longer lived.

We can talk about how things should and shouldn't be as long as we want, but that will not change human behavior.

When you're disabled you must come to terms with this reality and accept it quickly. You cannot waste time with theory. Theory will lead to your death. You must be practical and efficient to survive.

This "who should be saved" question is so silly to me.

In reality, the person that gets saved is always the person that the savers want to save. From situation to situation there are a huge number of variables affecting what the savers' desire is. These situations are often unrelated to a person's disability status, and usually have a lot more to do with how much the saver likes the savee.

I'm physically disabled, and some big determining factors as to whether I will be helped or not are: how much I am liked by that person, if I can satisfy their religious or political ideology, if I can give them a way to help me that brings meaning to their lives, and if they can make themselves look like a good person to their peers.

In addition to the options other commenters have mentioned, it is possible to fully control a computer with dictation, although it can be very arduous.

The term quadriplegia does not always refer to 100% paralysis, and some have limited use of their hands.

I've never met a HN commenter who is critical of gig work who is actually a gig worker, like myself.

Do you exist? Or is it always a bunch of privileged people blathering on about a situation they have no first-hand experience in?

Uber driver here.

You're not setting your own rates. You can't choose which rides you take. You can't follow your own rules.

As of a few years ago you can choose which rides you take without penalty. This is effectively how you negotiate rates as well. Only drive during busy times and accept high rate rides.

Remember when Uber was giving back to back rides to drivers that had Lyft driver app installed so they couldn't effectively drive for both? That doesn't sound like freelance work to me.

The back-to-back ride thing has nothing to do with having the Lyft app installed or not. It's a great feature that allows you to have your next ride lined up while on the current ride. It dramatically increases profit and efficiency (which also means less dead-miles -> less gas wasted -> less emissions). You can decline these "back-to-back" rides just like any other ride request.

Much of the pay structure is based on hitting a certain number of rides per week. So to get "decent" pay rate you need to work a certain number of hours.

If you drive when it's busy the incentives don't matter. My take home-profit (even after depreciation of vehicle) is $15-30/hr for about 20 hours per week.

Sometimes the company even owns your car and leases it to you contingent on doing a certain number of rides.

I don't know any Uber drivers in my city who lease their cars from Uber. Never heard of this happening.

And you have no input on which rides you get once you go online. You get all the ride requests near you. You can decline at will with no penalty.

Unfortunately the financial systems of governments are getting destroyed and we are powerless to stop it.

Cryptocurrencies are not destroying government run financial systems. They are just an alternative.

Bitcoin's 7 tps is a base-layer limitation. Layer 2 technologies like Lightning aim to address this issue. Lightning is functioning well and growing rapidly.

I don't think it's fair to say most Bitcoin holders are unknown entities. The AML/KYC requirements for converting crypto into spendable fiat are strong. The criminal use of Bitcoin is a small compared to it's legitimate use as a store-of-value.

Just want to quickly say that I'm disabled and I work in the Bitcoin/crypto industry, largely because every other industry has gate-keepers that would never hire someone like me.

None of the people I interact with and work with are gambling. We avoid that crowd because it's not sustainable nor does it create long-term value.

I think the issue is more that the healthcare industry makes doctors gatekeepers to healthcare, which can breed tremendous amount of resentment between doctors and patients. A doctor is pressured/forced to provide service to patients, and patients are not legally allowed to seek healthcare from other types of professionals, like biochemists for example, which often have a much better understanding of some diseases than doctors.

When there is so much coercion and lack of consent, people get very frustrated.

The really strange thing about tests is even if you pay out of pocket you still have to get a doctor to sign off on it, which dramatically increases the friction and price for testing.

It's just information about your body. You shouldn't need a doctor's approval for that.

My parents followed the usual schedule. I was born in 1986. I'm not sure what the schedule was exactly back then, but I had several shots under the age of 5, a few more leading up to age 10, and a few more up until my last shot in 2016. Iirc the majority of them before 2001 included thimerosal as a preservative. I don't think any one shot was a specific cause, and rather it was a cumulative thing. I do know that the MMR shot does not contain thimerosal.

This FDA Q&A is a good read, although obviously biased against my perspective:

https://www.fda.gov/vaccines-blood-biologics/vaccines/thimer...

The FDA does acknowledge that kids in my generation were exposed to mercury slightly exceeding the established safety limit for oral exposure, but makes no mention as to how it is not appropriate to use an oral limit when the exposure is through injection. Toxicologists know that the exposure route makes all the difference in how toxic a substance is, and it is specifically written into environmental regulations like RCRA. For example, ingested substances are first directed straight to the liver through the portal vein for detoxification before being spread to the rest of the body. Injected substances bypass this defense mechanism. No exposure limits have ever been developed for injection, because the laws are all written for pollution, and people obviously do not inject pollution into themselves. (I was an environmental engineer for several years.)

That FDA Q&A also discusses how there was a lot of concern expressed by healthcare professionals regarding thimerosal, and that's why it was (mostly) removed, but they stress that it was just to be safe, and they have no reason to believe that it's dangerous. To be honest, it sounds like covering-their-ass double-speak to me, and reminds me of how polluting companies handle their coverups. The reality is that these things are so difficult to prove one way or the other, and the liability and denial issues are immense. No one wants to admit to themselves or others that they accidentally poisoned someone. Not just for financial reasons but for their own psychological well-being.

Sure. I usually don't bring it up unless asked because it is very controversial.

Chronic mercury toxicity was the cause. I've confirmed this diagnosis with dramatic improvement to chelation therapy. I've also done some novel testing that indirectly confirms the diagnosis. It's not something you can test for directly unless you start taking biopsies of tissues you wouldn't want to cut out of someone alive. It resides in "deeper" tissues, not in the blood. The effect of mercury on biochemical pathways has been mapped out quite extensively, and we even know what and why certain genes make some people more susceptible than others. Not something you'll find in mainstream medicine, but the research is extensive and still rapidly growing. Particularly in the toxicology and chemistry circles.

I use a newer chelator called emeramide. It's currently in Phase II clinical trials and will probably be approved within 10 years. Although, it can be very dangerous if someone takes a too large of a dose, and the person pushing it through FDA approval does not seem to be fully aware of how bad it can be. Generally, the sicker you are the lower the dose you need to start on. This phenomenon is extensively documented in the Facebook groups where mercury toxic people discuss their experiences and results.

Emeramide binds to mercury the strongest, but also chelates other toxic metals like lead and cadmium, so those could certainly be complicating factors. Especially lead, as I grew up in a home and neighborhood with lots of it.

As for where the mercury came from, the timeline of my symptoms, animal toxicology studies, and it's removal in 2001, and more, all point towards the vax(inations I received as a child. For example, I had random and inexplicable symptoms as a kid like attacks of projectile vomiting without being sick, and bloody noses that would last for hours.

After a long battle with depression, this is how I interpret the phenomenon that "boosting" serotonin levels does not work.

SSRI's do not increase the pool of available serotonin, they just artificially increase the amount that remains in the synaptic cleft, facilitating additional firing of the neuron (or for a longer duration, I'm not sure which). They do not increase a neuron's ability to synthesize serotonin and release it into the synaptic cleft at the appropriate time. SSRI's cause our neurons to reuse serotonin longer than they normally would, which is not how we evolved to use serotonin.

The way this felt to me as a human interacting with the world around me was artificial happiness and artificial feelings of ease. I felt "better", but it didn't feel like it was grounded in anything real. I felt happy when happy things happened, but I also felt happy when sad things happened. Eventually it wore off and SSRI's no longer had any effect on me.

I eventually tried tryptophan and B vitamins (specifically B6), which our bodies use to synthesize serotonin. I got a similar effect to when I first started SSRI's, but it felt real. I was able to be happy when something happy happened. But when something sad happened I also felt sad. This effect has endured for 4 years now.

I have since found that I had a serious problem with a particular toxin which poisons many of the pathways involved with serotonin synthesis (among many many others including one of the most fundamental, the Citrate Cycle). A way around the poisoning is large doses of the appropriate nutrients. This is because the toxicity causes serious inefficiencies in their use by the body's biochemical pathways.

This was my personal experience. Depression is caused by many factors and I'm sure what works for me would not work for many. It can be genetic issues, other kinds of toxins, and overwhelming amount of trauma, chronic infections, unhealthy relationships, etc. Or a combination of those.

In the USA I can ignore rides at will without penalty, which is a recent development (last year or two IIRC). I only drive when it's busy and the rates are up. Uber offer's me a rate, and I choose whether to accept it or not. Even before this, though, I could just go offline when it wasn't busy enough or the rates were too low.

I still have no power to negotiate contract terms though, as the only other company I could contract with is Lyft, and their terms are basically the same.

Nevertheless, driving for Uber is much much more profitable than it was in the early days. Increase in ride demand is the main reason. Tips can also put you to $30/hour pure profit if you know how to be entertaining.

Except now the pandemic has destroyed the market.

I believe the cheapest energy sources are used. You can't compete on the mining market with the coal power in my region, for example.

The cheapest electricity in the world tends to be hydro or subsidized.

I assume countries that heavily subsidize power will crack down on mining.