BoHerfIIIJrEsq

Earthquake updates, nobody cares about it. It's not controversial. Suppose there's a bot that responds to every comment with positive sentiment about ivermectin with "You are not a horse" with a link to WHO guidelines. Would Twitter call that a good bot or a bad bot?

Suppose there was a bot that responded to every suggestion that Trump called white supremacists "very fine people" with a link to a video showing he didn't. Would Twitter call that a good bot or a bad bot?

> The phenomenon says much about his devotion to saving lives, as well as his willingness to listen and his role as a candid truth-teller.

It's absurd. The Guardian is part of the Ministry of Truth that has created an alternate delusional reality. I think Fauci will be lucky to escape a firing squad.

Temperature data manipulation by NOAA goes far beyond what people might imagine. They cool the past and warm the present by fabricating data for stations using a model that assumes the CO2 hypothesis.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vzGPq9LSjEw

> how to convince people on the flight to chill out

My sense is that there is nothing they could say. Hijack a plane, a bunch of men are going to attack you. That's it.

It's a fortunate thing that consumers of electricity pay for it individually. That way, it's not really a matter of public concern. Similar to how you don't have to worry about providing some justification for your habit of buying 4x as much mustard as your neighbor, or having 10x the number of vinyl records as the average for your state or whatever.

Not joking -- I think it may be all of those. See e.g. the work of Ivor Cummins, books like "Eat Rich, Live Long".

Hmm, but isn't it the beginning of wisdom? Will a person be motivated to cultivate themselves to be good if they really have no inkling about their capacity to do evil and harm?

Well, I grant it's hard to quantify. It was recently reported that Fox had more viewers than CNN and MSNBC combined, but that's TV.

On the internet, it's a very different story. If you block left-leaning news outlets on Apple News, your front page may contain nothing at all. Google News has a permanent section devoted to leftist "fact checkers". Their "beyond the headlines" section currently displays the NYT, BBC, Vox, Guardian, Atlantic, WSJ, Slate, Verge, and AP.

Well, my point is that if we're going to make people pay for things they don't like because we know better than they do what's good for them, let's try to do that equally. That's not happening on, say, the BBC, where for a while they were paying a black transwoman to promote racial hatred against whites.

Well, they're supposed to exist in the public interest, but it seems like it could be true that they're vehemently opposed by at least half of the populations they're supposed to be serving.

Let's say I grant you this generalization (it seems like it could be true to me). Then it's not really the NYT vs Fox, is it? Doesn't sheer quantity matter? What fraction of the media (say, the stuff you're likely to see on Google News) is "left" vs "right"?

In other words, the suggestion is that the right lies outright, whereas the left lies via omission and cherry-picking to concoct stories. OK -- doesn't it matter that the left has, I don't know, 85% of the market share (that's what the tech giants endlessly blast out)?

This is inappropriate use of the term "brainwashing". Brainwashing is accomplished by endless repetition and blocking competing information, so it'd be much more appropriate to call what CNBC and the rest of the MSM does "brainwashing".

QAnon and most of the prominent scientists and doctors speaking out against the vaccines are comprehensively persecuted on all major sites and platforms. How are they supposed to be doing "brainwashing"?

Side note: as far as I know, there's very little relationship between QAnon and opposition to mRNA vaccines, although obviously there's some overlap. Is this an attempt to link the two as if they're synonymous when they clearly aren't?

What does "intrinsic value" mean?

Keto (low carb)

No matter what Apple does, I'm moving away from Apple products in the near future.

Do people from elsewhere continue to want to immigrate to the US? Do you find yourself wanting to immigrate elsewhere?

> Americans are completely dependent on their cars.

America is a big place with a lot of different situations.

> Which means that children in the US have no freedom at all.

This does not follow, and is not true. In America we tend to think of freedom as freedom from various kinds of persecution.

I think you're probably right, but you chose some strange examples. I would have said Canada, New Zealand, Australia, UK, Italy, France. US authoritarianism is largely limited to blue states.

Edit: to put a finer point on it, Canada, NZ and Australia all seem to be post-democratic, post-constitutional medical police states. If you disagree with that description, please respond with what exactly they lack to be properly described that way.

From the moment some company put that Plaid process in front of me, I was horrified. I could hardly believe it existed. If somebody had wanted me to work on such a thing as a programmer, I would have refused. The existence and success of Plaid helped persuade me that in the technical solutions world, having good taste and morality is often a hindrance to business success. Plaid shouldn't exist. If somebody had the bad taste to bring it into existence, it should fail from non-use. But here we are.

> sea levels and temperatures are rising, unseasonable storms are more powerful and frequent than ever before, unprecedented wildfires are spreading

It's sad to see Snowden being suckered by this stuff.

Sea levels are changing at about the same rates they have been for as long as we've been measuring. Look at https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_us.html and see if you can see any curves (acceleration). Let me know if you find any.

Storms aren't more powerful, they're not happening at odd times, they're not more frequent. Wildfire damage is down something like 90% since the 1930s or so.

https://twitter.com/BjornLomborg/status/1429479685134725124 https://twitter.com/ShellenbergerMD/status/14325179857138647...

Edit: a little-known feature of HN is that you can reply to this message and type information that will disabuse me of my false notions. Please go ahead and do that, don't be shy, I'm looking forward to reading what you have to say. Don't just click the little triangle because what you read gave you a nasty feeling. Thanks.

To me it sounds like you'd be happier at a much smaller company. Same as me. I doubt I could work anywhere that had more than 15 or so employees. When a company gets too big, it gets bogged down in procedures and protocols. It gets an HR person. It's not for me.

What does impending mean to you?

This is good stuff, but it's not new. Meanness is ill will, a mental poison that will inevitably cause a person to harm others, but the very first victim is holder of the ill will. I think this was probably very well known even at the time of the Buddha 26 centuries ago. As I get older I seem to be realizing more and more how often we rediscover or reinvent ideas from the distant past. It may be unavoidable, because wisdom is hard to transmit via words.

> As it will get hotter, hundreds of millions will die of heat stroke and water and food shortages

We used to die in droves from heatwaves and water and food shortages, but we don't anymore, because of technology. Is increased CO2 going to harm crop yields? No, it's the opposite. Was increased CO2 bad for life on ancient earth? No, it was the opposite -- earth used to be an endless jungle teeming with life.

It seems to me like some people want to mess around with the climate because they imagine some neo-Malthusian horror story about the future, like we won't use technology to adapt. But they don't want to call themselves nature obstructionists, like I suggested elsewhere, because they insist that the warming is the fault of humans, despite the fact that the climate seemed due to warm up anyway, even if all humans had been wiped out by a plague in the year 1000 or whatever, since it had been in the Scotese "ice box" stage.

Well, suppose climate change wasn't thought to be anthropogenic, but it was happening the same way, i.e., warming up from being about the coldest it ever gets. So, it's not humans' fault, but it's inconvenient for humans. Would you still want to try to stop it? If so, would it be fair to call your stance nature obstructionism or something like that?

Well, hang on. Which was the correct climate? At various times, the planet has apparently completely encased itself in ice and then thawed itself out. According to the climate historian Scotese, the average temperature has varied between 10C and 25C for two billion years. "Recently" it's been about as cold as it ever gets. Is it actually sad that it's warming up? What was it supposed to do, stay cold forever or get even colder? http://scotese.com/climate.htm

Sometimes it's fun to pretend that the real purpose of all the anti-nuclear talk is to gradually create a situation where humanity cannot continue using electricity the way it has been, to literally disempower humanity and cause people to become accustomed to tiny trickles of unreliable electricity.

That's surely just a crazy flight of fancy, though -- since we're in a "climate crisis" where the earth will be overheating, politicians will surely arrange for us to have great bags of cheap, plentiful, reliable power for our air conditioning so that we don't go back to the days of, say, 1911, when tens of thousands of people died in heatwaves.

I'm sorry, I think you have it exactly backward. The vaccines are not well-tested. Ivermectin, on the other hand, has been used safely in humans for about 40 years. Dr. Varon, developer of the MATH+ protocol, attributes his much higher than average treatment success rate at least partially to the use of ivermectin.

https://rumble.com/vj1sm5-ivory-hecker-media-conceals-and-ce...

> The claims of election fraud are simply lies. It's not a matter of opinion. It's about as well documented as anything can conceivably be. Audit after audit has turned up nothing.

I believe you believe you're telling the truth. I can think of no better proof that conversation about it should not be censored.

Also, the election fraud issue is not the only issue Twitter routinely censors about. I think it's also censored people about Hunter Biden's laptop, climate change issues, COVID, etc.