cortic

I don't think people are that stupid, they know they have everything to hide from someone, and no idea who someone is. People think they can hide in the herd, the zebra defense. So long as my stripes are the same as everyone else's the lions won't get me. And they are not wrong, its a poor substitute for anonymity but it is a substitute. Problem is with our every move cataloged and indexed, and with searching bots and AI becoming more and more complex.. Its becoming not good enough to just look the same, we have to have the same political views, the same opinions, the same interests. There are other countries that have taken this to its natural conclusion and; having grown up in a democracy, its depressing seeing the level of subjugation humans will put up with.

But with C19 we are aggressively isolating people with symptoms. This focuses evolutionary selection pressure on the initial infectious stage. In order to be more infectious the virus increases viral load and shedding, causing more serious symptoms; which would be an evolutionary disadvantage, except isolation renders this disadvantage moot.

Also natural immunity general focuses on the nucleus of the virus, vaccine immunity is to the spike. So this forces mutations in different proteins, which has different results.

I'm not saying this is a bad study, or article. I'm just commenting on the sheer amount of crap circulating is leading to a general skepticism that seems to be filtering out people like me from even clicking the title/link to these studies.

Seems an indefensible statement. You can't possibly know how 'bad' the unknown is, its unknown.

2, Its significantly more ethical to potentially give some of an innocent persons life back and make some restitution. Than none.

3, There is never cases where we are sure; There can always be new evidence or a new way to look at old evidence that changes the amount guilt or innocence. To think you can be sure for all time about a set of events, even if you were there, is just wrong. If we replace reasonable doubt with no doubt at all then No one would be convicted of anything.

And when you consider only flagged videos should *need* to be watched by a human.

We've always had charlatans pretending to have solutions to our problems before chiropracty and homeopathy, we had traveling salesmen peddling fish oil as a cure-all and of course the power of prayer.

Not sure if it speaks to the gullibility of humanity or craftiness of private enterprise.

The only way i can understand this statement it that Rizzolo doubts that anything in the sardines are actually affecting type 2 diabetes. So perhaps the oily taste is suppressing apatite for 'sweet' and decreasing the patients sugar intake (decreasing them cheating on their diet).

Anyway a 152 patients study is not very conclusive, in larger studies there may not be any effect there at all.

It isn't, but it could be. If we had proper taxes on carbon emissions; The cheapest power would always be from renewables, bitcoin miners would invest in renewable energy which would make it cheaper in the long run as mass production scales with demand.

Energy efficiency is not important in carbon neutral energy production, and in fact can stifle development and raise prices making fossil fuels more attractive.

The problem is we (the world) are not effectively taxing carbon emissions. Right now it should be unprofitable to use coal or oil energy. If this was done right, Bitcoin would be a massive stimulus to renewables.

Now a 1/10k taken twice is 2/10k, so taken 14 thousand times it is 14k/10k. Okay so this isn't technically how you add statistics, but its close enough to see the utility in washing items.

-To be honest i massively underestimated how often i touch some of these items in the first few days, coffee jars alone get touched 40+ times, jam and butter 12+, bread 18+, diluting squash 14+.

To be honest i massively underestimated how often i touch some of these items in the first few days, coffee jars alone get touched 40+ times, jam and butter 12+, bread 18+, diluting squash 14+. even if i wash my hands after stowing away and subtract that number I'd probably be left with an average number of touches well over 6 after stowing.

Trying to stop catastrophes from happening needs regulation and incentives, both of these things are broken in capitalism by its nature. But its not impossible to have regulation and incentives in either capitalist or socialist projects.

In the UK the advice is still "Vaccination should only be considered for pregnant women when the potential benefits outweigh any potential risks." Whatever the hell that means, goes on to say "There are no specific safety concerns with the vaccines - but they were not tested on pregnant women."

Neither the BBC nor yourself are explaining why the immune system would not attack the protein its being told to attack in the body, or pointing to any large studies including pregnant women taking the vaccine and the rates of miscarriage.. Either of these things would be valuable.

This is the issue with misinformation, its usually based on a legitimate concern that was suppressed instead of answered; There was an issue with a protein in placental? tissue being similar to the spike protein, this is why the vaccine isn't recommended for pregnant women unless they are at high risk.

Now the layman knows the spike teaches the immune system what to attack, and puts two and two together, and assumes the vaccine will make all women sterile. I would love to put this argument down when i see it, but no one has explained why this isn't the case.. so I'm left with "surly they wouldn't do that" which is not a compelling argument.

So of-course, replicate my cells and their states and you replicate 'me', in every sense of the word. In fact since none of the atoms in my body were there 20 years ago i have replicated myself, a few times in my life.

An algorithm with changing perimeters produces different results, a stroke just changes the parameters like any other event, the information in the brain is the result of the algorithm and the iterative basis of the algorithm moving forward in time.. that is what intelligence is, artificial or natural (which itself is semantics).

The selection process that makes up the rules of the outer algorithm and start position of the inner can be said to be different but this is semantics.

So if you are right and an algorithm can never ever gain 'consciousness' as we define it, then we are not conscious.