i_cannot_hack

My problem is not that it automatically redirects to example.com.

It's that visitor only see "example.com" because the www is hidden. When they later type in "example.com" in the address bar to revisit the website (because that's the address chrome shows them) they are just sent into the void with no idea what is happening.

They then go back to my website via some link that was sent them to find the correct url – but again see "example.com" in the address bar and tries to visit it again in a new window – but of course it doesn't work this time either.

The visitor is then thoroughly confused why my website only works when they visit it via a link, and not when they type in the url directly.

Most people (reasonably) assume the text in the address bar shows the correct address, since that's how it works in 99% of cases. URLs containing www are the only exception.

I've never had any url open in Safari instead of the default browser on macOS.

In that case I'm sure you could think of better way to discourage nonproductive dialogue - rather than being snarky - if that is the stated goal. At least something less self-defeating.

Either way I think the question was warranted. Especially since the long passage from the Unabomber's manifesto they chose to quote when pressed for a response was rather illuminating regarding their beliefs.

It is inappropriate if you want to convince people of your viewpoint, which is what I stated. The aptness with respect to other goals could vary of course.

You viewpoint don't seem to be very convincing if snark is your best response to that question.

Of course "taste" does not exist if you define "superhero movies are dumb" as a value judgement that has nothing to do about taste. Simple calling it something else does not make it disappear, though.

One person likes superhero movies, the other does not. Is seems that by your worldview it will be an insurmountable barrier to forming a healthy relationship unless someone changes their mind, which seems to be a rather bleak attitude to me. Are you sure we couldn't find countless couples with different movie tastes (or movie values) who, despite this obstacle, are in happy and loving relationships?

I'm not an expert, but my understanding is the opposite.

One reason for trading with coins rather than raw metals at this time was that minted coins coins could be expected to contain a standardised weight and metal mixture, as long as the mint managed to curtail forgeries. If someone gave you a gold coin, the imprint of the mint gave you a guarantee it actually was pure gold (rather than a cheaper mixture of gold and silver, as an example).

The problem with forgeries was that forgers made their money by minting coins that weighted less or contained cheaper metals, and then passing them off as genuine.

If this goes on for long enough, the coinage deteriorates, since the large amount of fake coins in circulation means that a coin could no longer be expected to contain its specific value in precious metal.

Lindybeige (youtuber) talks specifically about this at around 13 minutes in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R2paSGQRwvo

> I'd much rather give people what they _need_ to survive, anything beyond that (tobacco, alcohol, entertainment, fashion clothing, cars, etc..) should be the privilege earned by working.

How would not having a car affect their ability to get to the job interview? And how would not having a fashionable formal attire affect their ability to do a good impression on the interviewer? How would not having access to entertainment affect their mental health?

People probably know more about what they themselves _need_ in their situation than you do. Give them the opportunity to divide resources on their own.

And investing in people beyond merely keeping them alive will generally pay dividends and be a good investment in the long run.

Vaguely related: Unconditional cash transfers in charity are generally successful and have a strong multiplier effect leading to increased long-term income (must people don't just spend them on alcohol and drugs, as some would believe) https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030438781...

I know, but I don't dislike the feature in general - I've discovered several songs this way.

> This really can't be emphasized enough. The younger generation has no concept of listening to a song you "don't like" 50 times, simply because you listened to the album you purchased 100 times.

Not necessarily true. When Spotify reaches the end of one of my playlists, it automatically starts playing a radio of "recommended songs" based on the playlist. However, these recommended songs are usually the same, with only minor changes over time.

As a consequence, I can think of several songs that I don't like that I have listened to more than 50 times, simply because they tend to be the among the first recommended songs to play when I've finished one of my regular playlists.

To be fair, your example would (according to the official spec) be shortened to 2001:cdba::3257:9652, which would not be hard to communicate over the phone.

I think there's a lot of counterargument to this, but I'll stick to the best one: propolis is used as more than just a a sealant for the hive.

"However, if a small lizard or mouse, for example, finds its way into the hive and dies there, bees may be unable to carry it out through the hive entrance. In that case, they would attempt instead to seal the carcass in propolis, essentially mummifying it and making it odorless and harmless."

Example picture: https://www.researchgate.net/figure/A-mouse-skull-that-was-e...

But the dung they describe is simply an additional coating of the nest.

To me, it seem ridiculous to call this "the first clear example of tool use in honeybees". I actually think there must be some big misunderstanding somewhere.

The argument is that by taking animal dung and coating the entrance they are "taking something and manipulating it to shape their environment", which they think qualifies as tool use.

But we've already known for ages that bees gather sap from trees and coat the inside of their hives with it (propolis), to seal gaps and prevent bacterial growth. I cannot think of any reasonable definition of tool use that would include dung coating but exclude sap coating.

Ctrl+f of "sap" and "propolis" in the original paper gave 0 results.

Edit: Upon further reading, they seem to define a tool as a "a non-plant solid", which seems specifically tailored to make dung the first tool. The fact that they fail to mention propolis even once in the paper to highlight what they think is the important difference does not impart confidence.

> Rapes have more than doubled in the past decade.

Do you have any source that states that this increase is actually due to more crimes taking place, rather than more victims reporting rapes due to shifting attitudes and/or less fear of societal rebuke? It could very well have been under-reported in the past due to stigma and other reasons.

These kind of societal factors can often affect the number of reported rapes more than the actual crime rate does. And we absolutely know that the attitude toward sexual violence and misconduct has changed a lot in the last decade. So it is reasonable to believe that this had had some effect on the increase of reported sexual violence, especially since most other violent crime has had sharp declines.

Summary of the provided source for people scrolling past:

Since 2010, homicide had a 21% decrease, robbery a 14% decrease, aggravated assault a 25% increase, and rape a 94% increase.

The contrast is even more sharp when looking 20 years back:

Since 2000, homicide had a 52% decrease, robbery a 35% decrease, aggravated assault a 47% decrease, and rape a 41% increase.

> Take them with wikipedia, not me. I will note, that Wikipedia talks about both Cutter and Wyeth having problems, so it is possible the numbers are a sum of wyeth+cutter which would be compatible with your numbers being cutter only, but in the context of safety vs. polio wouldn't matter.

Wikipedia is not wrong, but you are using their numbers wrong. Your source is talking about the total number paralysis cases that occurred as a result of the vaccine ("250 cases of paralytic illness had occurred"). This includes secondary infections. If you follow the sources listed on Wikipedia page you reference, you will find two sources: my source [1], and [2] (via [3]), both which declare around 60 cases of paralysis in vaccinated persons, and then a larger number (in the order of 200) of total cases. The numbers you reference are referring to only the Cutter polio vaccine, by the way.

And you cannot use the total number of cases in the comparison that you did.

> All wild polio numbers include those numbers by default - there actually is no way to get them otherwise, I guess you are saying "you should probably debase by more than 200,000 because of secondary infections". I don't know how to do that, exactly, but it will likely still be similar.

If by debase you mean divide, then yes: you would need to divide by more than 200,000.

Your number is {how likely am I to get paralysed by the vaccine polio + how likely am I to cause further paralysis via secondary infection chain}, and you are comparing it to simply {how likely am I to get paralysed by the wild polio}. The first number is inflated a lot by the addition of secondary infections.

The numbers are not at all likely to be similar. As you can see in my (and your) sources, secondary infections accounted for more than double the number of paralysis cases, and therefore there it is likely a lot more people got sick via the secondary infections than the number people who was vaccinated. This causes the big discrepancy between our numbers.

Wild polio causes secondary infections as well, but this is not included in the number you are using for comparison, since it only includes the individual risk.

> With this calculation, the vaccine was 25% worse than the wild type. No error bars, but, that's easily worse, even much worse.

But the lack of error bars means that the calculation is meaningless.

You are assuming that "one in 1000 cases" means exactly one case per 1000 cases, and translate this to 0.100% with three decimals of accuracy.

It is clear from context that "one in 1000" is a rounded number for convenience, and they could very well have runded up from 0.8 or down from 1.4. You simply cannot conclude that the vaccine was 25% worse from your data. But we can conclude that they were in some way similar under your false assumptions, as they both would round to 1.

If you want to conclude anything else except "they are both around 0.1%", you would have to find a source that specifies at least 1 decimal of accuracy in the number incidents per 1000 cases.

Of course, this does not really matter, since you would still be comparing the wrong numbers.

Your argument here is "It's ambiguous and inconclusive when using clearly wrong assumptions that inflate the difference". Taking that argument into consideration, I'm still willing to confidently call it patently false.

Although I agree that I should not have said "Even with your own inflated assumptions it's false that the vaccine was worse than polio." What I meant was "Even your own inflated assumptions does not support that the vaccine was worse than polio", but I clearly worded it badly.

> How kind of you to drop "patently". If you didn't mean "patently" false earlier, why did you use that word? twice?

I meant it when I used it, and my question had a purpose. If you cannot give any reasonable assumptions where it wouldn't be false (which you haven't been able to do), then it would be patently false to me. The reason it does not seem patently false to you is because you have several misunderstandings in your reasoning and your reading of the sources. But I'm not really interested in discussing this terminology further.

> given that they disagree with the sources I gave

They don't. As I said, you are simply misreading your sources.

But seriously, even if you would manage to find some source which would refute my sources and back up your original claims, I have a bigger point to make now:

During this discussion, you have made numerous mistakes in many posts, beyond my criticism of your faulty reasoning:

(1) Mathematical mistakes

(2) Misreadings of the sources

(3) Inability to clear up ambiguities by looking at the referenced source or secondary sources

Even if by some happenstance you would happen to be right (even a broken clock, etc), you clearly are not confident enough doing this kind of analysis to be lecturing people about the specifics of vaccination risks. You are just as likely to mislead yourself and others as you are to educate.

Of course, this probably won't stop you, since you are not likely to respect my opinion. But hopefully it will still be in the back of your mind next time you approach this topic.

[1] https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp048180 [2] https://www.cabdirect.org/cabdirect/abstract/19642705083 [3] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2928990

You are almost certainly using the wrong numbers. According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cutter_Laboratories#Cutter_inc... and https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp048180, the faulty production applied to 120.000 doses of vaccine, which lead to 56 cases of paralysis (0.046%) among vaccinated children. These sources further mention "the exposures led to an epidemic of polio in the families and communities of the affected children, resulting in a further 113 people paralyzed and 5 deaths", which tells me that your number of 250 probably includes cases caused by such transmission. This is of course reasonable when discussing the total damage caused by the vaccine, but this number can not be compared to the incidence of paralysis for a single infection, as you do.

You would also have to include further transmissions caused by wild polio if you would like to make such a comparison.

> still patently false. pfft. Perhaps false under some assumptions, definitely not "patently false".

Even with your own calculation, which is inflated by also including transmission within the community for the vaccine but not for wild polio, the vaccine was very much comparable to wild polio (0.125% versus approx. 0.1%). Without vaccination, polio would usually infect virtually all children. So even with your own inflated assumptions it's false that the vaccine was worse than polio.

So under which assumptions would it not be false?

> No, the cutter incidence was worse than the disease, because the activated virus was injected into a population, whereas naturally only a tiny part would be exposed at the same level, and the rest would be exposed at a much lower level - that would give them immunity but not disease.

This is a more reasonable assessment, but it is still patently false. According to Wikipedia, 0.04% vaccinations resulted in paralysis in the Cutter Incident, compared to 0.1-0.5% of wild type polio. So the vaccine was 2-10x safer than wild polio. Without vaccinations, virtually all children were infected with polio virus early in life [1], so being administered the defective vaccine was still a lot better than taking a chance with the real disease.

Of course, you are correct regarding the 1976 flu outbreak. If you administer something to a large segment of the healthy population, even a small risk of side-effects will add upp to a large number of cases. If the disease itself turns out to be very rare, as was the case with the flu outbreak, the vaccine itself could cause more damage than the disease even if the disease is much worse.

However, this is clearly not applicable Covid-19, which we already know is spreading very fast and will need to infect a large number of the population before herd immunity is achieved. The situations are simply not comparable at all – even the vaccine from the 1976 flu outbreak would be less risky than the odds of being infected with a serious case of Covid 19 (of which the long term effects are also unknown, to be clear).

> But whenever I mention that immunizations have risks, I’m treated like a heretic.

Mainstream media, healthcare professionals and social media are all worried about the risks of a rushed vaccine. I literally see articles and hear conversations about this several times a month. Nobody is denying that large scale vaccinations have risks.

I'm not criticizing you because I'm against being cautious of vaccination risks. The criticism is that you are spreading false facts and misleading analysis that grossly mischaracterise what the risks of vaccinations really are, both presently and historically.

"Some vaccines can have rare but serious side effects" is a perfectly alright statement. But "Historically, two cases of rushed vaccines (cutter polio and Gullah barre) were worse than the disease - and these were for diseases worse than covid" is just not. Some of it is false and the comparison to Covid19 is misleading.

[1] https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/en/poliomyelitis/facts

> Historically, two cases of rushed vaccines (cutter polio and Gullah barre) were worse than the disease - and these were for diseases worse than covid.

This is just patently untrue.

The Cutter Incidence gave patients Polio due to an improperly activated virus. While this is bad, it could not be worse than the disease itself - since it is the disease itself, no worse, no less.

Regarding risk of Gullain-Barre syndrome due to vaccination, Wikipedia has this to say: "In fact, natural influenza infection is a stronger risk factor for the development of GBS than is influenza vaccination and getting the vaccination does reduce the risk of GBS overall by lowering the risk of catching influenza." So here I also find it hard to believe the vaccine would be worse than the disease,

I'm also sceptical of the claim that Polio or the 1976 Swine Flu would unambiguously be worse than Covid19. 70% of Polio case have no symptoms, and less than 0.5% cause permanent injury, according to Wikipedia. The 1976 Swine Flu outbreak seems to have caused a few hundred cases and only one death.

I think you misunderstood the sentence.

I read it as "Nearly half a billion people rely on coral reefs for fish protein, says Sheppard, and climate change will kill many of [these reefs]"

It's not about the queens, it's about the drones (male bees).

The workers only start laying eggs if the hive goes without a queen for several weeks, and either way the eggs they lay are unfertilized and therefore cannot be raised into new queens. So requeening it is certain to work in that regard.

However, unless you euthanize whole hive, the aggressive drones will continue to live for a while and can mate with queens in neighbouring hives and spread the aggressive genes that way. So there is an advantage to euthanizing the whole hive instead of requeening it.

I'm curious, what field are you in? For a non-physicist you seem quite knowledgeable and confident about physics and quantum phenomena

Well, Vitamin D deficiency is easy to treat with supplements instead. And I would say skin cancer is rather more serious than Vitamin D deficiency. I don't think the goal should be to have skin cancer and Vitamin D deficiency be equally common.

You can set it to always show the current path via View > Show Path Bar (it's interactable, although unfortunately it's not editable like text).

You can set it to always show the current path via View > Show Path Bar

> Why does it try to pretend like there is no filesystem?

I've seen this complaint before from Windows users interacting with Finder, but I've never understood where it is coming from.

Aside from the "Recents" tab, everything is organized into files and folders, just like any other file system explorer. The sidebar is mostly shortcuts to different folders, and I always navigate down in a nested folder hierarchy to find my files.

Is it that the "Recents" tab is the default view that gives this impression?

At first I agreed with you, but I think your analogy to algorithms actually somewhat counters your point.

The Wikipedia article for Dijkstra's algorithm gives an alternative name of "Shortest Path First", or "SPF algorithm", which I do think is a much better and more descriptive name.

It also made me think of sorting algorithms, which all have wonderfully snappy and descriptive names. I think the world would be a sadder place if – instead of quicksort, mergesort, and heapsort – we had to struggle with opaque names like Hoare sort, Neumann sort, and Williams sort.

> I think Google is great.

I use Google's products daily and agree they are often better than the competition. But do you not at least see the potential for a problem when gigantic semi-monopolistic tech companies control major parts of the societal methods for discourse and discovery, while collecting personal data from almost everyone? Are people who worry about this so unreasonable that they are deserving of flippant insults and name-calling?

> What's next? No more StackOverflow? No more using that popular package manager and, instead, installing all that stuff manually?

You give no convincing reason why that would be a probable next step, if you even believe it yourself. You buried your own point beneath so many layers of sarcasm that it is neither humorous nor insightful.

You attempt a really weird spin when you try to attribute the rough patch to the U.S being "rightfully sick of playing world police". When the current commander in chief threatens nuclear war on Twitter and assassinates military commanders on sovereign soil. It's not really hallmarks of a laid-back foreign policy.

1. It feels like you are at risk of some survivorship bias here. Yes, the software that currently exist were apparently made anyway, and is popular enough to be replaced if it went missing. But you have no way to quantify how many possibly useful or innovative OSS projects were never made because of the lack of financial opportunities.

2. I feel the whole idea of this kind of open source patronage / funding is to decouple the market value of the software (which is $0) from the compensation to the contributors for their time and effort (which I think should be above $0 in an ideal world)