> “Thousands of highly educated scientists, doctors, pharmacists, and at least four major medicines regulators missed a fraud so apparent that it might as well have come with a flashing neon sign. That this all happened amid an ongoing global health crisis of epic proportions is all the more terrifying.”
It's strange to call "the right-wing" into question for their assertions when this claim calls the entire establishment into question.
I've seen this more often than not. The pyramid is a pyramid for a reason, and I'm somewhat skeptical that we just have to throw out unit tests or they suck or something.
You don't have to be a TDD acolyte to find unit tests useful or essential.
> Personally, I find unit tests to be mostly useless.
Meanwhile I've found myself in the position where people eschewed unit testing entirely under this "just do integration tests" thinking and now I'm stuck fumbling around with flaky and hard to run integration tests that take forever to run.
Unit tests are good because they test whether the code you've written work as you expect. They run instantly. They don't require a full setup with other integrations.
This is indispensable - while it's nice to see a service integrating well and behaving as expected, it's also very useful to know practically instantaneously that the logic you're calling from a controller or something isn't broken. And if it's really tough you can easily put in breakpoints and step through, etc.
Yea I think this is a more accurate view. It's definitely a more thought-provoking angle, namely that people often complain about systemic bias - ignoring that pretty much all important culture, media, arts, and academia are controlled by left-leaning people.
The obvious response is the Colbert line: "reality has a liberal bias."
But that's ultimately unsatisfying, condescending and far too simplistic - I'm not sure how to effectively advocate epistemic humility to people who're convinced they're arbiters of reality.
It doesn't take a genius to surmise that a future actual despot will hijack all this infrastructure that was so cleverly crafted by The Very Smart Experts on the left.
Do we have any sense of the cost to young children who presumably won't see as much face-mouth signalling during the crucial developmental phase of their brain?
> I don't understand why hundreds of thousands of deaths is okay for the right wingers like you?
Kamala said she wouldn't take the vaccine cause it was from Trump.
Cuomo/Murphy have clearly made massive mistakes in their handling of the most vulnerable during the pandemic likely directly causing 10s of thousands of deaths in those states.
Never mind the liberals and others that called for a WWII-like mobilization and takeover of private industry to create ventilators that likely ended up causing more death, meanwhile calling anyone else that objected to those calls heartless murderers.
No one is ok with 100s of thousands of deaths and implying that's true is slander.
What would the average pro-lockdown person say if someone hosted a party or even got together with someone for coffee without a mask? They'd be calling for jail. I've heard this enough throughout the pandemic.
I notice a lot of run-of-the-mill liberals automatically assume their opponents who aren't manifestly crazy are "devil's advocates" or not making the argument in good faith.
It seems intellectually lazy and the epitome of condescension to cast away all criticism in this way. As those opposing arguments are always beyond the pale and not worthy of thought.
The overwhelming feeling I get from this type of person: "there's no possibility I'm wrong."
> the part where he instead diagnoses everyone with having been driven crazy [...] is not really thoughtful
I said you could expect "significant" depression if there's de facto (in some countries de jure) criminalizing of social activity.
I think you're the one who's not being thoughtful about characterizing arguments here.
I believe the policy is often misguided/short-sighted but I never said that, you're extrapolating that valid criticism of the policy would be a discredit for officials.
Since they claim a quarter of patients are showing symptoms and one of those is depression - how do they separate the out the effect of the de facto criminalization of social activity, an innate human behavior ingrained in our DNA after millions of years of evolution?
You'd get significant depression in solitary confinement too.
> I really don't know what their game is, but they are up to something.
Their game is absolute power. It's not hard to see that anything that strays from the party line or amasses any degree of power that poses a potential risk will be squashed.
People ridicule with "all news is good news for Bitcoin" but it's somewhat obvious that this is a credit to the power of Bitcoin - they wouldn't take swift action against something harmless.
> But just to say that you do not want to live in a society with rules seems quite extreme.
You could easily say this to justify mistreatment of undocumented people or deportation. Or incarceration, excessive sentencing, etc.
I feel like (generally speaking) liberals unwisely discount that the same machinery used to construct their utopian, technocratic, behemoth state will be abused by despots.
All the sanctimonious tech types making more than all the lower classes they sneer at - they think it’s their right to “waste” energy on their unimpeachable luxury good: their Tesla.
Whereas using it to hash for an unconfiscatable store of value is wrong /s
> there will always be a lot of doom and gloomers predicting massive inflation
Clearly if all the actually essential things like education, housing and healthcare are manifestly unaffordable - it's not a matter of prediction - it's already here.
Conveniently these things are generally left out of the CPI that people use to claim whether inflation is happening.