>Somehow there's this idea that the Sars-CoV-2 vaccines need to prevent infection or symptomatic disease but that is an incredibly high bar that no respiratory viral vaccine has ever met.
This might have something to do with the fact that "experts" (ei. the CDC, vaccine makers, and politicians in charge of health organisations around the world) explicitly told us in no uncertain terms it would prevent infection. It was one of the main argument for getting it and we were never allowed to question it when a significant amount of vaccinated people started testing positive. We were also told it was dangerous misinformation to question it publicly and it was career suicide for any expert to contradict it. The goalpost has been moving gradually from "complete immunity" to "reducing the risk of severe symptoms".
one of the most interesting thing about covid was to watch people and politician rewrite history. I thought it would be difficult to do in the 2020s but I was so wrong and I wish I had saved screenshots of tweets from health officials and politicians. It's always interesting to watch the face of someone who claim that something is pure misinformation when they realise the CDC themselves were promoting the idea just weeks ago.
>People like to hate on Facebook, but how is any other social media different?
I think the main reason for it is that most of us are just old enough to remember what facebook was before they started filling the site with ads and recommended/paid/suggested/etc posts. It was really fucking great back when you would logging and there would be literally no content/ads other than what your friend manually took the time write/post.
they gave us a taste of what a great minimalist social media platform could be and then turned monetisation/engagement to 9000.
Imagine if HN was bought by reddit and they decided to use the reddit platform (new skin only, no "old.XX...") with all the ads and everything. That's kinda what happened to facebook.
>The problem with a single, rigid configuration is that you can't satisfy all user types.
From a user point of view, the problem is that satisfying beginners will get more click/impression/downloads/etc.. If the company is managed by accountants, you end up with products that get shittier every version.
>but it shows the lack of discoverability that happens when the list of settings gets long and you have to dig for them. I
A hard to find setting is better than not having the feature to begin with. The main prblen with "modern" UIs is that they are strait up removing feature and acting like its a good thing.
I know it's partially off-topic... but Instagram removing the ability to view content without and account and pretending they did it for the benefit of the users is pure BS and it gets even worse when you consider how agressive they are at requesting your phone number.
It wasn't social media who decided that the government should strait up lie to people just because it was the best way (in their opinion) to get the best outcome.
A big part of the anti-vaxx movement comes from the fact that the government have made it very clear they will lie and misrepresent data whenever it is politically advantageous for them.
If you want a very recent exemple, just look at this interview from someone very high up in the food chain at Bayer (youtube.com/watch?v=qowDwaYx7vI) and then try googling about whether or not mRNA is gene therapy. it was considered dangerous misinformation to say what he just did and yet he is overseeing the fabrication of covid vaccines.
It's far from the best example, but it's one where I won't have to waste an hour getting proper sources
Why would only one side be forced to provide such evidence? The fact that almost every modern country on earth is requiring it makes me think that the burden of proof would be stronger on the side of people who think ID requirement is racist.
>but they stress that they don't consider themselves mission critical
I'm new to shopping for email hosting and using your own domain. I know sending emails and not get flagged as spam is a hard, but is there any risks when it comes to receiving emails?
You get the best of both world, the interpretation of the camera and the possibility to render your own if the camera messed up. It's a lot easier after a trip to just delete all the raw images than to try to fix the white balance of a jpg.
When I started photography a decade ago, I tried to optimise by using Raw when I thought I could get a benefit (eg. night photography) and jpg for the rest. Now storage is cheap/fast enough that the impact is negligible and it can save you when the camera or you (manual mode ftw) mess up the exposure.
>The biggest thing that excites me about the possibilities for the future of smart contracts is that creators of all kinds could automatically benefit from any work they do.
>Any company that used faker.js to make a profit would have X% of that revenue feed back to the smart contracts.
Doesn't work in the real world. If you rely on them to tell you what their profit are for a project, they'll just give you a value of 0$ and continue to not pay you the same way they did before. The blockchain/smart-contracts adds no value compared to changing the licence on your code because either way you have to beg/sue them to get paid.
Even with a client who is well intentioned and wants to pay you, they will never want to link their profit to a smart contract and expose their financial data. Measuring profit btw is very complicated and there is a lot of human interpretation to it, you can have a company worth bilions of dollars with top employees making millions per years even if it technically has never made a profit.
And also, the risk of a bug in the smart contract emptying their account would be enough to stop any serious companies.
The technological solution would be to stop rewarding them for these monstrosities. One of the main motivator for turning a short recipes into a 19 page essai about the chef's life is that more words = better ranking.
This might have something to do with the fact that "experts" (ei. the CDC, vaccine makers, and politicians in charge of health organisations around the world) explicitly told us in no uncertain terms it would prevent infection. It was one of the main argument for getting it and we were never allowed to question it when a significant amount of vaccinated people started testing positive. We were also told it was dangerous misinformation to question it publicly and it was career suicide for any expert to contradict it. The goalpost has been moving gradually from "complete immunity" to "reducing the risk of severe symptoms".
one of the most interesting thing about covid was to watch people and politician rewrite history. I thought it would be difficult to do in the 2020s but I was so wrong and I wish I had saved screenshots of tweets from health officials and politicians. It's always interesting to watch the face of someone who claim that something is pure misinformation when they realise the CDC themselves were promoting the idea just weeks ago.