You fell for the boondoggle. Waymo has a very narrow set of routes you can take. They collect ultra HD maps for those routes in SF which has a completely unsustainable human labor cost. It doesn’t scale to “drive me on any road”. Waymo is localized-only driving funded at a major loss by a search ads monopoly.
Cruise does the same, just with VC money (and weird low-traffic hours of operation).
They have not solved driving in the generic sense and they are fooling you (and investors)
Three specific demographics prefer the (from the factory) higher ride height of SUVs:
1) Women
2) The elderly
3) The overweight
Women have a say in over 70% of vehicle purchases in the US. So even if the vehicle is for dad, mom (who is 5’4” on average) preferring the higher ride height of the SUV will influence the purchase if she has to drive it occasionally.
The elderly and the fat have a harder time getting in and out of lower-riding cars/hatches. The country is getting both older and fatter at the same time.
These are the driving forces in crossover dominance.
Their app is a thin wrapper to their mobile site. With Safari push notifications, they don’t need the App Store. I would guess the App Store isn’t a path of discoverability for them anyways. People find them very intentionally on the web.
> And when the FBI said, "Hey, can you write and sign a custom bootloader for this phone to bypass that stuff?" they told the FBI to pound sand and made the hardware security features stronger so even Apple couldn't break them.
Imagine being dumb enough to believe that PR campaign. If you actually believe that the spooks don’t have iPhone back doors after the PRISM slide leaks, I don’t even know what to say…
"Don't take the unproven, unjustified drug" is the default position in medicine. You are trying to shift the burden of proof here and it's embarrassing.
YOU are making at least 3 positive claims when advocating vaccination for those with prior COVID infections:
1) COVID natural immunity breaks historical patterns of natural immunity in similar infectious disease
2) People with "only" natural immunity are at significant risk of severe reinfection
3) There is a risk-adjusted, significant benefit for those with "only" natural immunity to get vaccinated
lol, no. You know that not a single vaccinated vs unvaccinated population study has ever been conducted, right?
VAERS is designed to detect acute, recent reactions and only acute, recent reactions. If it's not an accute, recent reaction, it probably never makes it into VAERS. That notion that long-term effects could even be reasonably detected today without a vaccinated vs. unvaccinated population study is highly questionable. The CDC refuses to do a vaccinated vs unvaccinated comparison study of overall mortality and disease prevalence. Don't believe me? Go on YouTube and you can find videos of Melinda Wharton making excuses to not do it. Sad, laughable excuses.
Also, you mentioned a German specialist: are you only considering vaccine rollouts in high HDI nations? Because DTP is absolutely associated with increase overall mortality in developing nations. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15082643/
Worth noting that DTP was the reason why the 1986 Vaccine Injury Act was lobbied for and passed in the first place. Vaccines were so "safe", that they couldn't be brought to market for a profit because injuries and lawsuits were so frequent. So, the government indemnified the manufacturers, capped the max injury settlement at $250k, made a special court for vaccine injury where all documents are under seal, and had HHS (taxpayers) make all the payouts. Sounds safe to me!
Because before 2020, natural immunity to virtually any infectious disease was considered sufficient and superior to immunization. The entire concept of natural immunity being "not good enough' is brand new. It was never uttered before COVID, and it has never been proven even during COVID. It's an absurdity, that nobody in the realm of infectious disease even entertained before government started acting forcefully on behalf of pharmaceutical companies in the past 18 months.
Go look for yourself. "Do I need varicella vaccine if I had chickenpox?" The answer is NO.
>Oh, this is a different disease
Okay, then produce a single study indicating that those with prior COVID infection are hospitalized with a reinfection at higher rates than the fully vaccinated. That study doesn't exist. It's all just arbitrary anti-body level response studies, which are useless. If you can't produce a study to show why this infectious disease should be treated differently than all the others, then we'll go with the default position: natural immunity is enough.
Useless paper. Measuring arbitrary antibody levels. The antibody levels produced by natural exposure could be sufficient to protect against hospitalization, and the additional vaccine dose could be unnecessary. Also, 21-day follow up (laughable).
Show me some real-world data of previously infected individuals getting severe reinfections at significantly higher rates than the fully vaccinated. That's the metric needed to make your claim and those data have not been produced. Also, the staying power of the vaccine is already in question BY ITS OWN MANUFACTURER just via the prospect of boosters. They admit implicitly that the immunity their drug produces does not last.
>There has never been a vaccine with a side effect found after more than 2-3 months. Long term side-effects are not a thing for vaccines.
Bullshit and demonstrably false. The first gen rotavirus vaccine was pulled post-marketing because it destroyed the intestines of infants. Was on the market for a year.
Medical freedom should be absolute. It’s only because of totalitarian midwits like you trying to force policy that I’m in the situation I’m in. And I know first-hand what it’s like to have your health destroyed by an experimental drug, unlike you.
People without underlying conditions have a right to avoid the vaccine. I say this as an at-risk individual. You understand that modern vaccines have been pulled from the schedule post-marketing, right? Rotavirus gen 1 was pulled for destroying the intestines of newborns after it was already on the CDC schedule. The analysis of Pandemrix showing that it was linked to narcolepsy was not done until years after swine flu. Hesitancy of the current mRNA vaccines is perfectly reasonable, purely for chronological reasons. Volume of test subjects does not make up for lack of long term data, and only people saying otherwise benefit financially from you ignoring that fact.
Ultimately, given the lack of long term data, the reasonable policy should have been anti body testing before vaccination. Detectable anti bodies = no vaccine, go about your life. But that’s too reasonable. Instead we’ll force everyone to buy the new pharma product, expose everyone’s medical history, and not check any edge or corner cases while doubling down on our laughable position.
I have an autoimmune disorder (caused by a drug trial of an immunotherapy I was on due to cancer). I haven’t taken the vaccine because my cohort has been excluded from every trial and study. There is no (serious) guidance on how I’m supposed to schedule my regular biologic shot in concert with a vaccine dose. The CDC actually has a section on their website saying how people with auto immune issues were excluded from trials, and that they should weigh risk/reward with their doctor. Then in the next sentence they recommend getting the vaccine anyways. Totally unscientific and dangerous position from the CDC.
During this past year I’ve had to disclose my medical condition to my employer against my will due to my county’s disclosure requirements. And I have to fight with coworkers who say people in my cohort should “just get it” despite not being included in trials and despite there being no timing/drug interaction guidance.
So a big FUCK YOU from me. Vaccine requirements, along with vaccine status disclosure requirements, have destroyed my medical privacy and ostracized me at work. I’m trying to take a scientific position based on trials that actually included people in my position, and not end up like the guy you’re talking about having to take 3 and 4 and 5 shots because my biologic suppressed the immune response. Basically you’re asking me to take all of the risk of injecting an experimental drug into my arm, perhaps 1-2 times more than the typical person, without any of the reward (immunity), AND without any actual scientific basis for the treatment in the first place.