BoHerfIIIJrEsq

Well, yes, meditation doesn't fix cancer. But it seems like such an odd point. It's like writing an article to clarify that exercise will not help if your car breaks down. I guess some people have a wrong perception that meditation helps cure cancer, so clarifying that it doesn't is helpful, but that's no real knock against meditation.

IMO, to help you through hard times, the meditation practice needs to be there already. You don't reach for it at the time you have difficulty -- that's probably too late.

Yes, Twitter arbitrarily censors people for expressing the wrong views. Yes, the censorship fails. People who understand the idea of free expression feel deep revulsion at censorship. To me, something being censored is enough of a reason to look at it and to help it spread.

> “Right now, the only way we have to deal with content is on a platform-by-platform basis.”

Oh, that's so sad, isn't it? If only there were a way to conveniently and pervasively stamp out all that dirty "misinformation". Come on -- aren't you supposed to at least make your authoritarian tendencies somewhat subtle?

> Even if Trump runs for president and wins in 2024, Twitter said it would not reinstate him.

The Taliban's various accounts are safe, though.

Government might try to go house to house in red states. They'd encounter resistance everywhere, in innumerable forms. The government would be fighting with people defending their homes and their way of life. It would go very badly for the government.

I doubt this really needs to be said, but it's not age. It's wisdom, which is basically just experience. The more stuff you see pass away, the less enchanted you are with it. You know that you will eventually be separated from things, so it gets easier when it happens.

Hmm, it seems to be working. There are some nice examples on https://github.com/HackerNews/API

> But what I think is really interesting and should give people pause is the heterophobia

Yes, good point. I suspect this may be due to general mental fatigue. Even when we're not really studying, every bit of discernment we're called upon to do uses some energy. We have much more information-dense lives than before. We don't have the energy to be curious about the viewpoints of strangers. We quickly establish categories and just want to know which bin somebody belongs in. Seems like a big loss, very under-recognized. Said another way, we might be much kinder to each other if we were somewhat starved for input.

Sickening. It's like a commercial from a movie like Robocop where freedom to travel is contingent on being injected with... well, whatever the government declares you have to have to be "fully vaccinated". Doesn't matter how tested or under-tested it is. Doesn't matter how many adverse reactions there are.

If you don't think this is dystopian, I'm afraid you have some very difficult and painful lessons ahead of you. Someday in the not-too-distant future it could be you being declined entry to the grocery store for being fed up and refusing the 10th injection.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/4980 ^ I live on the opposite side of the planet from my family. If something like this passes, I will not be able to visit them without getting an injection I believe to be not merely medically unjustified, but very dangerous. If you support stuff like that, we're enemies.

Pretty much everything these down-to-earth people are saying is true. If you accept the government's cunningly-constructed arguments, then there's no injection you could ever refuse -- they'll just say that failure to accept the injection is putting people's lives at risk, and that's supposed to trump all other considerations.

Meanwhile, this report is deeply deceptive. They show us sick people to frighten us. But the NYT is either malicious or incompetent not to mention that effective treatments are available, such as the MATH+ protocol developed by Dr. Varon et al. Varon apparently attributes his much higher than average success rate at least partially to the use of ivermectin, information that the NYT and many other media outlets have helped keep buried.

They say that the patient they interviewed died. It's supposed to be a chilling finale, an exclamation point that proves their point. But I can easily go find ten examples of young healthy people being promptly killed by the vaccine, i.e., going from excellent health to having heart attacks or strokes at the age of 25 or whatever. Anyone who doubts that this is possible should check the off-the-charts VAERS reports for the vaccines, which dwarf all the reports from the past few decades combined. Again, not mentioned by the NYT.

At the NYT and other propaganda outlets, the conclusions come first, and then half-hearted "investigation" is done to support those conclusions.

Oh, I'm very aware how safe things are compared to the past. This does not actually change the fact that the environment is fundamentally dangerous. Nobody controls whether they'll still be alive in ten seconds. I think it's the type of thing people will either accept or not, based on their wisdom, not an argument.

> I think they're a foolish "toy"

Well, I might agree with you, but that's reason not to buy them, not reason to ban them.

> he prevented many injuries and deaths that would have occurred had he not stepped up

Well, it's likely he prevented deaths via lawn darts. But we cannot know how many lives we lose due to the cumulative effect of prevention of dangerous games. What I mean is, a lot, if not most, of the play that young men do is preparation for a dangerous world. Do you think there are no consequences for preventing dangerous play? Is it possible that the deaths just happen later in different, unanticipated ways?

It's another layer of humor to this thing, that the proposal is to resolve the issue with a phrenology-ouija board type of thing, known to be incredibly unreliable. Why would anyone even mention a lie detector?

My parents had to endure the loss of a child. I'm the melancholy ruminating type, so I often think about that and the stories of other parents who lost children, like the father who came to my school to tell us about his son, who had died from inhalation of butane. It's all terribly heartbreaking, and I can understand to some extent what they want to accomplish.

But I think it's just a combination of suffering and a big misconception. "If I do [some stuff], we won't lose any more children, at least not that exact way." But there's no amount of messing around in the world that's actually going to prevent loss, not in any meaningful way. We just get acclimated to the circumstances, and start overprotecting kids, which is just a way of delaying the harm. We live in a fundamentally unsafe environment. We have a better chance of fixing our own brains that we do of making the environment safe.

> I trust Androids even less than a CSAM'd Apple.

I think that's understandable, but it's too broad. There are things like GrapheneOS and Calyx.

I'm not excited about Go. I am excited about Rust.

What makes a newspaper a tabloid? Are there objective criteria? Recently the NYPost was one of the few big media organizations to cover the Hunter Biden laptop story, which was legitimate at the time and has since been totally vindicated. If NYPost is correctly called a tabloid, what is the word for a newspaper that fails to cover important stories in order to protect bigshots?

Meditation. https://www.thepathtonibbana.com/

'Indigenous' is a political term that has no clear meaning.