thelean12

> And how many people died from COVID because they received this message: "Masks aren't needed. WHO said so. Now they're backtracking because they want to control us."?

You're literally contributing to that message by discounting WHO as a valuable resource.

> I wrote them off as a trustworthy source of data or advice.

I refuse to believe that you both understand the reason behind telling people not to wear masks at the very beginning and yet lack the critical thinking skills to realize they're one of the best resources for covid recommendations in the world.

Are you just being petty? Are you lying for fun? Something else?

Do you just look for headlines that confirm what you want to be true?

"The findings are consistent with previous research. Health experts have long said a mask provides only limited protection for the person wearing it, but can dramatically reduce the risk to others if the wearer is infected, even when showing no symptoms."

Whether or not someone is "healthy" is completely irrelevant when you count that last part, "even when showing no symptoms".

It's not good advice.

What are you even saying?

Are you saying that YouTube should be the arbiter of whether or not a video is a fair criticism of WHO guidelines?

Or are you saying that YouTube should allow complete bullshit, lies, and misinformation mixed in with the few bits of fair criticism?

Both options are completely absurd.

Maybe post a source that isn't a far far far right conspiracy website.

Pro-tip: If a website posts an article that starts with `I am not a “flat earther", but` then tries to get you to buy gold and silver from them, you might not be on the most reliable website.

Why would I need to worry about keeping my towels "dryer"? Are you showering twice a day or something?

Beyond the video issue, I wonder if a bunch was already blown up during the test spins before the main flight.

I'm not sure how that's different than someone sending a direct message to someone in a chat. Except now you'd definitely have no idea if someone was discussing something important and you were missing it.

I spend ~35% of my weekly waking hours with my coworkers. Despite my objection, I completely understand people who want WFH/remote. But I absolutely don't understand people with your sentiment.

> I _cannot_ mute a coworker talking loudly next to my desk.

Maybe my team was more respectful. Any prolonged conversation can and was taken to a conference room or common area.

I also wear noise canceling headphones most of the day, and find the general muted drone of office noises nice. People listen to recorded audio of cafes and stuff, it's basically the same for me.

But to be clear: I'm not saying everyone should have the same preferences as me. I'm just letting my voice and concerns be heard, since I've heard plenty of people go on about how they think WFH/remote work is better.

Sure, we have all that. And maybe I'm just wired differently. I haven't made any real connections or friendships with my virtual coworkers over the past year. In the past when I joined a new IRL team, I'd have some budding friendships after a few team lunches.

Maybe it's because there are hardly any actual real personal bonding moments. For example, lunch with 10 talking heads on a VC is insane to me since you can't have more than one conversation at once, and any conversation you have has to be with the entire group. You can't pick up on something someone said, realize someone else has the same interest as you and go sit next to them and talk it out. You have to have the 1:1 conversation in front of the whole group, or leave the group.

That's just one example of why it seems so difficult to make real, genuine friendships at work now.

Your description of ideal working conditions sounds so robotic to me. Schedule everything! No off the cuff conversations! Screw the human desire for socializing, we've got shit to do!

Right now my team is comprised of no one that I've met in person. I feel absolutely no connection to them and feel so incredibly disconnected from my work. Like I've been playing the same video game for 8 hours a day for a year and nothing I'm doing is real.

I'm quite scared of hybrid or full remote solutions for my company. I don't want to switch companies right now but if they go full or hybrid WFH I might have to, just to keep my sanity.

Are any of the things in your garage 10-20x the average cost of that thing? That fridge is like the Lamborghini of fridges.

I'm not saying buying something that is 12.5% of your take home income is unreasonable. After all, I own a car. I'm saying that buying a fridge at 12.5% of your take home income is unreasonable.

If she only made the 250k, she'd be spending like 12.5% of her yearly take home pay on a fridge. That seems like a little much.

($250k is like $160k take home with her home town taxes. 20/160 = 0.125)

At this stage, getting as many people to near 100% death avoidance and with some immunity is the goal.

We're not at a stage yet when we can play favorites. It'll be a long time before we have the supply to prefer one over the other (except maybe in the US where there will be enough mRNA vaccines to go around).

> If you were a high risk individual back in January 2020 who ignored their advice and quarantined + wore a mask (an effective mask, i.e N-95), you made the right choice.

Did they? Or was the chance they'd come in contact with Covid at that point very low and those masks would be of much better use at hospitals where the chance of coming into contact with Covid was very high? At least, that was what the experts were saying at the time. I donated my N-95 masks (that I had from California fires) not because we thought they didn't do anything in January 2020, but because the experts said they were of better use in hospitals.

> Science can only explain so much and runs out of answers eventually.

You say this as if there's a better place to find answers. Where is that place?

You may not be full on anti-vax, but you're very clearly anti-science.

> I expect I've had all variants

No evidence of this.

> and apparently my immune system is on top of it

No evidence of this.

> in which case there's nothing to pass on

Even if the above were true, we don't know how long you'd have immunity.

> and the people in my area clearly don't care if I did.

They would if they caught it and had severe symptoms.

I'm not insisting that a claim is true just because an authority says it is. You can't just bring up "appeal to authority" and call it a day.

I'm insisting that the average unqualified individual should not think they have a better chance of being correct over the authorities in question.

There's no other rational option for unqualified individuals than to listen to medical authorities unless you have a medical degree yourself and have read and analyzed the research yourself.

> I haven’t heard a single uneducated opinion say, “You should not get it because X”.

It's not even 3 hours into my day and I've already received 3 texts from family saying something along those lines regarding J&J, even if it gets unpaused. It's a much more prevalent thing to say than you think.

> If people wanna rationalize not getting the shot based on their own misunderstanding of the science, that’s fine. That’s okay.

It's not okay. We need shots in arms. And you're doing your part by enabling those who are misunderstanding the science by making them feel like it's okay to not get the shot.

> sometimes those authorities get it wrong

Yes. That's correct. That doesn't change what I said.

Answer me this: why do you think unqualified individuals are better suited to get it right?

Just because there are examples in the past of people who went against the recommendations who ended up being right, doesn't mean you should take everything else into your own hands. Unless, of course, it's literally your job.

> I think it is a disservice to outright label people as anti-vaxers simply for questioning the risk-calculus of vaccines.

It's the same idea though, and should still be called out. It's people who have unqualified medical opinions, and who are then often spreading that opinion to others as if it's useful.

Let the agencies figure it out, pay attention to the latest recommendations from them, and go with that. Anything else is just the blind leading the blind and should be called out.

> side effect

To be clear, we haven't determined that it's actually a side effect. That's why they've stopped, to get a better handle on what actually happened, and what to do about it.

It could be related to the vaccine, it could not be. It could be 1 in a million, it could be 1 in 100k.

It's like golf too. There's a saying: "They don't draw pictures on a scorecard."

Overly commercialized is a strange way to put it. It's certainly the least commercialized of all the major golf tournaments. Daily tickets are the cheapest at $115. Food is incredibly inexpensive. And you can watch at home for free, with probably the best coverage of any tournament, on their website.

Green just means it's a new account.

This completely falls apart at big tech. If you read all the documentation once for all the components you're working on, you'd be out of commission for months just for your first project. Actually understanding what you're reading takes a career.

Learning only what you need to is essential in this environment.

Did you miss my quotations? I said "fire" in quotations, obviously not meant to be taken literally.

And it's not quite like that. It's if someone comes up to you and says "Hey I can get a bunch of people to come and drink from your water hose. If I get enough can you pay me?" And then they get arrested for murder and you think maybe they should stop.

Uh, yeah, of course. I wasn't saying anything contrary to that.

All I said is that people focus on the FAANG perks way too much, as if they're contributing to some problem. Even in the article, one their shining moments was when they cooked for themselves and found another doctor (??).

Alright well idk about Amazon. I've worked for a few FAANG but not Amazon. But Google, the topic of the article, is definitely a company where you can do a moderate amount of work for large amounts of money.

It's strange to me that people love to shit on FAANG life so often.

Every perk is scrutinized, as if serving dinner in the office means I MUST stay for dinner (I almost never do), or having a doctor or laundry service on campus is some nefarious thing.

At the end of the day, you get paid a huge amount of money to do a moderate amount of work. It's the dream, to me.

And then every once in a while people burn out and make it seem like it was the free dinner that did it. "I found my own doctor; I cook my own food." What does that have to do with anything?

(Sure, HR is shitty and that's something to care about. But that's an industry wide issue, not a FAANG specific issue.)

You are all getting way too caught up in terms. It doesn't matter.

A company firing an employee for getting arrested is a very close situation to Twitch "firing" a streamer for getting arrested.