2,577 karma · joined July 22, 2016
And in any case, it doesn't have any bearing on the fact that Rogan claims to be some kind of innocent, open-minded guy who wants to talk to all kinds of people, when in fact he has clearly chosen a side on most issues and treats guests differenly in order to push people to that side.
His guest, who has the correct info, claims that children have a much higher risk from getting myocarditis from COVID than getting it from the vaccine.
Rogan says "I don't think that's true, no no no, I don't think that's true. Let's look that up"
They look it up, Rogan is definitely in the wrong. The risk is 8x higher from COVID than the vaccine.
Does Rogan admit he's wrong? No, he states:
- "Well, that's not what I read before." - "And anyway, where are we reading these things?" and then rambles nonsense.
This is a pretty transparent way of signaling to his audience that even in the face of actual data, you should just find some justification to believe the stupid conspiracy-level thing you want to keep believing.
https://twitter.com/FullContactMTWF/status/14816386894154629...
From the guidelines.
They are the ones that should have let him fly and dealt with the issue separately without creating a new incident if they felt he was in the wrong.
In the past when video was a novelty and no one had any real expectation of performance or quality, it didn’t matter much because expectations were low.
But so much work has been done since on reliability/performance/network efficiency and very few products can provide that. Without that work, people will think your player is broken, you will waste mobile traffic, etc. Even Reddit can’t get it right and they are a top 10 website.
Obviously the person you replied to meant invalid in the sense of “not intended to receive funds”
It would have been a competent design decision for a system to require some type of initial registration of intent to receive funds for an address in order for a transaction to post.
The point being that such task forces are beneficial and policy changes addressing such imbalances often end up benefiting everyone.
But yes, there have been such cases. Epic successfully forced a massive number of Android users to sideload Fortnite to get around Google's policies, and Google wasn't happy and tried to undermine that attempt.
No she didn't - the article you're referring to is below, and what she said was more nuanced. It's also a reasonable analysis from the perspective of the time it was written (May 2021):
https://www.theinsight.org/p/we-need-to-get-real-about-how-t...
https://cdn.euroncap.com/media/66949/euroncap-2021-dacia-spr...
https://cdn.euroncap.com/media/55749/euroncap-2019-tesla-mod...
BMW iX: 5 stars
https://cdn.euroncap.com/media/67239/euroncap-2021-bmw-ix-da...
Jaguar I-Pace: 5 stars
https://cdn.euroncap.com/media/63559/euroncap-2018-jaguar-i-...
Nissan Leaf: 5 stars
https://cdn.euroncap.com/media/62961/euroncap-2018-nissan-le...
VW ID3: 5 stars
https://cdn.euroncap.com/media/64338/euroncap-2020-vw-id3-da...
VW ID4: 5 stars
https://cdn.euroncap.com/media/64335/euroncap-2021-vw-id4-da...
Hyundai Ioniq 5: 5 stars
https://cdn.euroncap.com/media/67127/euroncap-2021-hyundai-i...
Ford Mustang Mach-e: 5 stars
https://cdn.euroncap.com/media/65695/euroncap-2021-ford-must...
Which is a contrived example that conveniently sidesteps the two most relevant factors: the personal/intimate nature of the communication and the consequences of sharing it against the person’s will during a timeframe in which it would have an effect on the person's life.
Reducing the chance of something that you didn't want shared from being shared by a factor of X% is better than nothing. Try to step out of black-and-white thinking for a minute. Just because something is not perfect doesn't mean it's useless.
And people are terrible friends and will take the time/effort to bypass any measures necessary to share the photo.
The feature is designed to address the "somewhat bad" case, not to be perfect.
It's completely reasonable for someone to give you a letter or photo of a personal nature and ask you not to share it (or simply expect you to understand that it's not to be shared). In the physical realm, the honor system comes into effect. In the digital realm, there's nothing wrong with adding an imperfect layer of accountability/protection to greatly reduce the chance that it becomes shared.
It's entirely reasonable to create a system designed to allow people to share things once, and indicate to others that they don't want it spread any further. It's reasonable to design software which attempts to honor such requests by introducing friction, making it 95% effective despite knowing that 5% of people will be able/willing to work around it.
Most people are "path of least resistance" and are too lazy to work around something like this, which is exactly the point. Pretty much every person using such a system is aware that the recipient could just take a picture of the phone with a camera.
Perfect is the enemy of the good.
We could have easily been able to have an open conversation about the lab leak possibility if we had proper leadership at the time.
The first thing Bush did after 9/11 was go on TV and essentially say to everyone: “hey, don’t be racist towards Muslim Americans because of this attack; they are fellow Americans and have nothing to do with this” and it was largely effective.
(Not that I'm praising Bush as a president, but this specific act was an instance of good leadership)
> PinePhone 1.2 pmOS CE (convergence package) with 32GB SanDisk eMMC: before 55MB/s, after 125MB/s
> PinePhone 1.0 Braveheart edition with 16GB Kimtigo eMMC: before: 80MB/s, after 110MB/s
Yes, they certainly have.
Look at the ratio of cases to deaths in the data from countries where people generally believe in science and are accurately measuring data: Canada, Germany, Israel, France, etc.
Look at Portugal, with the highest vaccination rate in Europe and see how there are 3-6 deaths/day despite a resurgence in cases.
The US has a low vaccination rate, and is in complete disarray regarding COVID (in many cases simply due to the fact that each state has its own policies/problems), but most modern countries are carefully balancing policy to keep ICUs at a manageable rate.
But the data showing that mass-vaccination has reduced deaths and kept ICUs from overflowing is so blatantly obvious that you have to be exercising willful ignorance to not accept it. It's basically flat-earth level of denialism. You can see the direct correlation between vaccination rates and deaths/ICU intakes by looking at the data.
The virus wouldn’t have a high survival rate if we didn’t have these measures. Otherwise hospitals would be completely overrun, which would not only increase death rates directly related to COVID but also those of people with any other illness who rely on hospital care to survive.
You can’t have it both ways: if you’re against the measures then you have to accept what that would mean.