briefcomment

I think GPs point is that if you were optimizing for the best health outcomes, you wouldn't demonize promising, or at least benign, non-vaccine treatments. Doing so makes it seem like the vaccine push is optimizing for something else.

I don't think it's the actual facts that are especially problematic, but the rabid antagonistic response to a theory.

Insane

How can you be so gung-ho with relatively new vaccines, but bury relatively benign and longer standing interventions?

We need people to start making the hard decision to forgo the convenient option.

> "Dr Lan Xue, who advises the Chinese Government, said facial recognition could prove "tremendously helpful" in identifying people in mass gatherings if there is a "major accident"."

People need to follow their gut and say no to things like this.

It's hard to pick out the reasonable interventions from the ones that are being promoted for surveillance purposes. It's probably best at this point to be conservative with the civil liberties we compromise on. Unfortunately, certainly language has been co-opted, and that's confusing. "Greater good" and "public health" are hard to argue against.

Not sure I follow. It sounds like the experts in your example are able to effectively identify fair reviews based on their merit. This would need to be the case for people to pick out unfair reviews (and therefore deter reviewers from writing bad reviews). But it that's the case, anonymity shouldn't incentivize anyone to write bad reviews (since bad reviews would be identifiable and dismissible on their own). If anything, I would think that de-anonymization (implicit in this case, since reviewers are presumably nominally anonymous) would be more likely to empower cult-of-personality effects (or in general, would incentivize looking beyond the merits of a review, to get into an influential person's good books), making bad reviews more influential than they otherwise would be.

Sure, but in general, decentralization will make it harder to effectively steer institutions and behavior with collusion.

Probably why we need more and more trustless systems. Hopefully crypto works.

I'm guessing it's more about transparency. Monsanto using a proprietary genome for the sake of increasing yield at scale seems fundamentally different than a local farmer who selectively breeds to maintain some heirloom crop. I think the former is much more of a black box and has more potential for something unexpected to occur than the latter.

It would be amazing the hear the version with her lead vocals.

How do you execute someone without at least testing DNA on the weapon?

There’s barely any investigative reporting here. Reads more like an opinion piece.

>light

Looks like it's not light https://slate.com/business/2021/05/ford-f150-lightning-elect...

In what suburb do you have only two neighbors within walking distance?

Nice, that just scratches the surface. Naturally, you probably won't agree with everything he says, but I've learnt a lot from the way he approaches questions.

Also, Dr. Ray Peat http://raypeat.com/articles/articles/unsaturated-oils.shtml

I'd like to see both if possible. Actually I would like to see BCH replace USD (or a bigger block BTC).

In the case of a supply capped crypto, to not get burned by asset inflation.

What exactly do Ether holders vote on in this scenario? Changes to the protocol? Is that process highly transparent and easily accessible?

I don't see why we couldn't have both good and bad propaganda. It would be a good way to throw people off, like you in this case. Regardless, there are probably many somewhat independent groups participating, of various ability. I doubt this is being done by just one micromanaged group.

What do you think are examples of Chinese propaganda? If it was good, I don't think we'd be able to tell.

It's seriously great reporting. They dive deep, and keep their tone as impartial as you could hope for. Good job LA Times.

Interesting study. I think most people think the complete opposite. Science communication seems pretty broken.

Nine Neanderthals were hunted by a pack of Hyenas? Wow, didn't realize Hyenas could be so aggressive, and couldn't be warded off by sticks and maybe fire.

There's definitely a market for a currency that avoids monetary policy. I think exchanges are an intermediary until P2P becomes the norm. That's why I'm bullish on BCH. They make P2P cheap and fast, while retaining most of the other signature aspects of BTC.

Fortunately, there’s a competitive crypto landscape. If none of these are actually decentralized, people will move to different currencies. Sure it will be turbulent, but we’ll probably get to something effectively decentralized eventually.

I think this is at least part of the reason why - rich families have healthier physical environments. Living next to a highway for example will damage your breathing and disrupt your sleep, making you functionally stupider. Having houses built with more expensive premium materials can drastically reduce your exposure to VOCs.

Aren't dollars and assets fundamentally different things? Land would keep up with inflation, while dollars wouldn't for example.

Don't store wealth in USD. Store it in scarce things.

It's all relative, but if you have assets that are keeping up with inflation like land, real estate, crypto, or anything scarce really, you're better off. I think wages don't really keep up with rapid inflation in the short term.

This makes the analogy even more appropriate. We know the spike protein is harmful in some amount, but we think a small enough amount produced forever should be safe. Maybe we'll learn otherwise.