unanswered

Please show me the part of my comment where I alleged a conspiracy? Or said anything about the woke?

I hate to be that guy, but... it's not irony.

In this case, it's design. Increasing social injustice is the whole point, because that ensures increased political power for those who campaign on social justice.

So in other words all of the non-debunked reasons for <30 to get vaccinated are all about individual health, and have no impact on anyone else's health.

They aren't the same, but llogiq is both. (Now just an /r/rust mod.)

The problem with this theory is that the moderation team has been entirely supportive of Ms. 'Kill' so far, and actively works to silence dissent about her position in public Rust spaces. (Maybe not so much as the unofficial mods, but I personally was on the receiving end of llogiq's overreaction in /r/rust to any dissent.) I believe they would take her side in the dispute which Klabnik vaguebooked about a few months ago.

> saying that employees are striking in 20 countries is completely false.

It elicited the desired feelings and therefore it was completely true.

So set `X = "other Rust team members"`. Everything else in the comment was just for drama.

> Is there any good way to craft a message like this?

"We are resigning and our reasons have been shared privately with X group. <eom>"

But since the goal of the whole exercise is to generate publicity and drama, the above was an unacceptable approach and the approach actually taken was highly effective.

As we all know, non-heterosexual people are a myth and probably shouldn't be allowed to work in jobs with anyone anyways ... ?

But... he didn't? Most of the studies he found no fault with. This seems to be a striking example of alternate facts you have picked up from the same article...

Sure, and I almost edited my original comment when I made it to clarify that as far as we know, Ivermectin isn't a very good protease inhibitor. That's what the fact-check should have said. Instead, we were fed a pile of garbage because the garbage sounds more comforting to those who emotionally need Ivermectin to be horse medicine.

But I don't think that Scott has done more than offer a suggestion as to how the studies might be flawed; no matter how compelling the suggestion, it isn't evidence. Otherwise you're just consuming more nicely-dressed garbage, which is even more dangerous because you get to feel superior to those consuming the normal garbage.

What would constitute good evidence for the worms theory is, you know, a study actually studying that. Otherwise the theory is just assuming that a lot of the people benefited by Ivermectin do have worms, when that hasn't even been measured.

> the option to pay with just money simply is not there.

You seem to be confused about the concept of consent.

If they're anything like me, they've always wanted the ivermectin thing to be worms-at-best-crap-at-worst, but have refused to accept "shut up and stop listening to the wrong science" as evidence in favor of that proposition. From that perspective their behavior is not only rational, it's far more rational and pro-science than the mainstream. Not surprising given who the audience is.

But the only expert opinions they cite are:

> Pfizer’s drug has protease inhibitor activity like ivermectin, but they are a very different kettle of fish on a variety of levels

and

> Dr Walter explained that PF-07321332 is a “direct acting antiviral drug”, while ivermectin “has multiple mechanisms of action on animal and human cells as well as some serendipitous antiviral activity”.

This sounds much more like "yes, but" to me than "false". And indeed, the rating given is not "false" but "Missing context". The headline is certainly accurate (ivermectin is not the same drug as Pfizermectin) but also fake news in that it is a strawman; no one has claimed that they are literally the same drug.

The interesting claim, if clearly stated, is "The mechanism of action of Pfizermectin for treating COVID-19 is as a protease inhibitor. Ivermectin is, among other antiparisitic effects which are usually more interesting, also a protease inhibitor." That claim is validated by the evidence given in the fact-check.

Moreover it's worth calling out a known lie in the fact-check (which is included entirely gratuitously as it doesn't have anything to do with the headline or the verdict or even my "interesting claim" above): "some of [the mechanisms of action of Ivermectin] could have unwanted, even dangerous side effects." Ivermectin is on the WHO list of essential medicines and is considered extremely safe, with just one known complication related to a particular parasitic infection IIRC. I can only imagine that the reporter, having not gotten any definitive proof for the desired 'false' verdict from Dr Walter, pushed and prodded until eliciting this absurd and false but politically expedient statement.

> Studies have been done. It has been found lacking.

TFA found that more reliable studies found it was helpful than not. You are the one who is anti-science.

> contrarianism in search of evidence

But that is literally what this article is, and Scott admits as much! He says that he chose worms as the most "trollish" possible response, despite a lack of any strong evidence at all that worms are the answer.

> And now we’re learning that it was indeed based on lies.

No, now we're admitting that it was based on lies. That information has been around for a long time; if not quite all the way to the first allegations, at least very soon thereafter. It's the same deal with the lab leak. The information showing the lab leak hypothesis is at least plausible (if unprovable) was available in May 2020, but it was only this year that various actors got around to admitting the plausibility. We didn't "learn" anything this year that changed the underlying facts in either case; it's just that the facts became morally permissible to report.

Important to note that this is an opinion piece. The New York times has not yet admitted to wrongdoing.

A players have a deep understanding of the topics so that very little or no memorization of solutions and techniques is necessary. (Practice, in this case, is a form of memorization.)

> The people you are competing with study leet code for 3 months

You can keep competing with the B and C players if you want but don't give that advice to others.

> we're not banning these books or anything like that

she says as she literally bans books from being checked out, indefinitely.

That was the prosecutor.

You're right that you can't inject into orbit with this. But unlike a balloon it seems to me that this does allow you to cheat the rocket equation, because you exit the atmosphere with not insignificant velocity in a somewhat useful direction, never having had to carry the fuel to do so.

False and misleading headline.

The judge explicitly stated on the live stream that he did not "buy" either side's arguments that zooming was or was not a manipulation. He stated that an objection was lodged and that he needed a sworn statement in evidence, from someone other than the lawyers who were admittedly both guessing, that there was no distortion of the image. Based on the livestream he never prohibited the prosecution from doing their pinching and zooming.

Moreover if it were really as "obvious" as the prosecution claimed it was, then I can see no reason why they did not produce such a statement. Or, alternatively, why they dug their heels in so hard and insisted that they be allowed to show the evidence on an iPad, despite 100% of the substantial audiovisual evidence so far in the trial having been shown on courtroom screens. Defense lawyer was completely wrong about upscaling (possibly getting confused with gpu AI upscaling?), but I can find no fault at all with him smelling a rat.

Source: the livestream, https://youtu.be/mNnfHUtwFBg. Sorry, I know primary sources are scary in today's soundbite world.

Because mostly the answers don't matter and the only thing that does matter is the fact finder's opinion of the parties.

> From an "unknown risk" perspective, you'd also have to consider that COVID itself could have yet-unknown long-term risks.

That would not factor into a correct analysis: the unknown risks of covid are the same whether or not you get vaccinated (or any other treatment) because by definition the vaccine has not been shown to mitigate the unknown risks.

Spoiler alert: the mechanism of action of pfizermectin is the same as ivermectin, even though they're different drugs. How did Pfizer think of using this non-obvious mechanism of action?

For an individual, the antiviral is better because it means they don't need to take the vaccine with any possible risks, however small, up front. Yes once an individual become symptomatic with covid-19, they're forced to be exposed to one of the risks, but at that point the antiviral is the only choice. In short, it allows an individual to delay taking the unknown risk until there's an actual known downside to not taking it; i.e. unmitigated covid symptoms. Most people will never be exposed to that downside anyways.

We just need a few more booster shots! And the anti-vaxxers need to get vaccinated!

> Side effects from vaccines almost always occur within a few weeks of getting them, if they occur at all.

According to what? Studies where control groups were eliminated after a few weeks?