macilacilove

> Somewhere between Newton and Mark Zuckerberg, theory took a back seat.

It is like saying "Somewhere between Ghandi and Wonder Woman, India's independence movement took a back seat"

It is clear that WW has no relevance just as Zuckerberg to science.

Also, comparing one of the most respected human minds of all time to a simply grotesquely powerful active living person this way is something that is very distasteful from a news publication.

We don't have a herpes vaccine probably because it is considered a very mild inconvenience by most people. Most people that have the herpes virus do not even realize it. There are 100s of thousands of different virus species living in your body and if you were to vaccinate yourself for all of it possibly it would do more harm than good for an insane amout of money.

I think all industries and companies in the world that have any online presence are AI mapped to a vector space representing their alignment with Google's preferred political goals/allies.

They internally call it AI fairness or whatever.

It probably is the case that in this representation entertainment such as WWE and MMA ends up being viewed unfavourably by Google since they are vaguely associated with political powers that want to limit tech censorship, etc.

I think this is happening and it is bad.

Since results are highly personalized one way to fight this would be to install search bias monitoring extensions and statistically proving that results are intentionally biased for censoring porposes(which I think amounts to abuse of market dominance)

To avoid such monitoring Google is going to roll out strong restrictions on allowed browser extensions(linke manifest v3 in the name of privacy) at the same time meta/fb is just banning accounts in order to stop statistocal monitoring of their bias. [1]

Expect more of this unchecked soft censorship as user rights and tech accountability slowly diminish.

1:https://www.eff.org/es/deeplinks/2021/08/facebooks-attack-re...

It is not very complicated to "trust the science". Do you really think that medical professionals who refuse to take the jab are not smart enough to "trust the science"?

Or do you just hate people who do not vaccinate?

No. Apparently we have data for increased transmission of omicron by the vaccinated. [0]

It may be due many number of things, but it is clearly not safer to work with vaccinated coworkers if that study is correct. -- [0]: https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/52810/is-the-ef...

>These powers would want to remove the trouble makers.

That is indeed a good argument.

I do not believe covid vaccines are intentionally killing people. The chance of that being the case is maybe 1 in a (m/b)illion who knows. (is it too much or not much risk to mandate it on everyone given the alternative(everyone gets infected etc)?)

There exist groups however who would decrease population no matter what, because they think that is the only way to "save the planet", right?

There are other possibilities where the vaccines are preferred by evil conspirators, but I won't go into it because figuring out how evil people would think is not making me happy at all.

"which pushes up their "levelized" costs further."

To me that means that the "levelized cost" metric punishes controllable energy sources unfairly for the "issues" that are caused by volatile energy sources right?

By that metric if you produce lots of electricity at the exact times when no one needs it, you are a hero because lots of MWh for some small build cost.

That metric ignores how much real world economy is being enabled by the power that you generated, roughly the price for which you could sell your energy in a free market.

My point would be that energy is much more important when the sun is not shining, etc. that makes e.g. solar not as good as a naive calculation would say. That sould be accounted for right?

In which country do you loose the power to vote when you become homeless? I suspect that was not a democratic country in the first place.