throwkeep

Not sure if sarcastic. Twitter, Facebook and Youtube are all heavily engaging in censorship. For example, they banned people last year for talking about the lab leak hypothesis, which is now acceptably mainstream(1). They are currently censoring a Youtube channel(2) run by a PhD in biology, who has been interviewing MDs and the inventor of mRNA vaccines, and whose stated purpose is to help end the pandemic(3).

1) https://youtu.be/sSfejgwbDQ8?t=170 (Jon Stewart on Colbert earlier this week)

2) https://twitter.com/BretWeinstein/status/1405234596820643840

3) https://twitter.com/BretWeinstein/status/1404474243128037378

Please let us plebs invest in Stripe already!

“The role of BlackRock alumni in the Biden administration is the latest chapter in a decadelong rise in both Washington and on Wall Street. BlackRock is the largest asset manager in the world with $7.8 trillion under management as of September. As it has grown, it has both boosted its operations in Washington and hired government officials.”

https://www.wsj.com/amp/articles/blackrock-emerges-as-wall-s...

He talks about his investment in Coca-Cola all the time, and is often drinking coke during his interviews and shareholder updates. He's pretty upfront about it.

It does have to do with tech. Social media, and Twitter in particular, enables and encourages the behavior the author is talking about.

Not yet, that's apparently coming, assuming Sam is correct about his source being reliable. If that's the case, what we're seeing now is a slow rollout. Presumably to get the population comfortable with officials talking about UFOs, instead of jumping immediately from denial to confirming alien tech.

That's what I'm trying to figure out too. The narrative is the biggest change so far. Low quality videos and eye witness reports aren't exactly new.

Sam Harris, who I consider trustworthy, was given a heads up about what's to come:

"I got contacted by somebody who gave me a heads up with respect to all of this happening and he more or less told me listen, when this other shoe drops you’re going to be in the position of having to acknowledge that all the experts are on the same page, and there’s just this blanket declaration that we’re in the presence of alien technology, and we don’t know what to make of it. So prepare your brain for that and figure out what you’re going to do."

https://samharris.org/podcasts/252-alone-universe/

Right, if you want to drain the swamp, shouldn't pardoning Assange and Snowden be the first thing you do?

Wikileaks releases source material. Corporate mass media does some investigative journalism, while manufacturing consent and generating clickbait.

Yang was treated terribly because he's an outsider and not part of the establishment. See also Bernie, Trump, Tulsi. The GOP, DNC and corporate media were all against them during the primaries.

Same, I don't understand it. Also still surprised that Google sold them.

Jon Stewart just made that point yesterday too:

“I think we owe a great debt of gratitude to science,” Stewart said. “Science has, in many ways, helped ease the suffering of this pandemic, which was more than likely caused by science.” (1)

I disagree with regard to climate change though because that externality has so far been a net positive for humanity and we can solve the downside. Yes, technology enabled us to dig up and burn buried carbon at scale sufficient to alter the climate, but that's what lifted billions out of poverty and eliminated starvation in much of the world. We'll solve the negative externality with renewable energy, clean nuclear energy, carbon capture, improved manufacturing efficiency and materials, etc.

1) https://news.yahoo.com/jon-stewart-endorses-lab-leak-1305162...

> First is the idea that Government spending is bad.

It's not saying that all spending is bad. The point is to have some pushback so it's not so wastefully spent. Some efficiency would be welcome by all, I think.

Make it a holiday and move the election to the day after tax day:

"Elections should be held on April 16th- the day after we pay our income taxes. That is one of the few things that might discourage politicians from being big spenders." - Thomas Sowell

That's a vital aspect. Kenny vs Spenny is an example of this too, I think. You wouldn't be able to capture that authenticity with a top down approach.

That's why I recommend using https://aaa.aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa... for your urls.

The loudest "anti" voices tend to be those who engage in the very thing they advocate against. It's so common there must be a term in psychology for it.

I could see Coinbase as the world's bank and stock market all in one. Or a pets.com cautionary tale. Check back in a decade or two!

It would be interesting to see how many of those who thought they had it prior to Feb/March 2020 ended up getting Covid later, as it would mostly rule those anecdotes out.

Don't most US cities have social services that provide shelter, food and other assistance?

[How nice that this is getting downvoted. It's a legit question. I have family members who are social workers and know these services exist, and it seems like it's most cities, but don't know for sure, hence the question mark.]

The majority of Americans engage in lifestyle inflation. That's a major issue generally.

In a community of Olympians, the idea of not training on the weekend would be considered laughable and a non starter. It's the same in any field if you want exceptional results.

Agree, it also doesn't help that we haven't been building enough new housing to keep up with growth.

"Considering the urgency of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, detection of various new mutant strains and future potential re-emergence of novel coronaviruses, repurposing of approved drugs such as Ivermectin could be worthy of attention...

As per data available on 16 May 2021, 100% of 36 early treatment and prophylaxis studies report positive effects (96% of all 55 studies). Of these, 26 studies show statistically significant improvements in isolation. Random effects meta-analysis with pooled effects using the most serious outcome reported 79% and 85% improvement for early treatment and prophylaxis respectively (RR 0.21 [0.11–0.37] and 0.15 [0.09–0.25]). The results were similar after exclusion based sensitivity analysis: 81% and 87% (RR 0.19 [0.14–0.26] and 0.13 [0.07–0.25]), and after restriction to 29 peer-reviewed studies: 82% and 88% (RR 0.18 [0.11–0.31] and 0.12 [0.05–0.30]). Statistically significant improvements were seen for mortality, ventilation, hospitalization, cases, and viral clearance. 100% of the 17 Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) for early treatment and prophylaxis report positive effects, with an estimated improvement of 73% and 83% respectively (RR 0.27 [0.18–0.41] and 0.17 [0.05–0.61]), and 93% of all 28 RCTs."

Given that, why are so many opposed to Ivermectin and why is big tech suppressing the discussion of it?

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27493994

Also living space per person has nearly doubled since the 70s.

https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/new-us-homes-today-are-1000-s...

“They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.”

― Carl Sagan, Broca's Brain: Reflections on the Romance of Science

What you're missing is that Ivermectin is decades old and off patent so anyone can make it cheap. Merck is against it because they are working on a new drug that they'll have a monopoly on. Typical of big pharma.

Why are people blindly accepting what big pharma says when it comes to Covid, as though the industry has suddenly turned a new leaf?

> What makes someone an old school progressive, in your opinion?

Those who were known as progressives prior to about 5 years ago. Eric and his brother Bret were self described progressives for decades.

> I'm having trouble finding anything progressive about this person.

Listen to his podcast The Portal to see. That he works with Thiel simply means that he is able to work with people who have different opinions. Guilt by association is lazy, as is dismissing a theory as crackpot, especially from a serious intellectual with the credentials (eg Harvard) to back it up.

I'm a liberal and it's clear that big tech is suppressing dissenting voices. It's not targeted at conservatives specifically, but it captures them in larger number because tech and corporate media is mostly liberal and progressive. As such, conservative is by default a dissenting voice.

Edit: See the lab leak hypothesis where big tech was suppressing and even banning people last year for questioning the approved narrative. And here's an example just yesterday with old school progressives being silenced: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27493994

Both also use a lot of energy themselves.