It is getting harder and harder to believe that you are participating in this conversation in good faith, and this post is dead anyway so this will be my last reply.
The argument was over whether Covid-19 evolved naturally and was spread to humans from a colony of wild bats or was engineered at the Wuhan Institute of Virology and was subsequently leaked. The leak theory was, in those unenlightened times, considered "right wing propaganda".
The article says that the outbreak probably originated from the lab, and this is the guy that is capable of engineering it. It then goes on to list papers he published and research he was involved in. That list of papers, and the job posting cited in the article coupled with the geographic origin of the infection being colocated with the lab sure look like evidence to me. Circumstantial evidence, sure, but evidence all the same. Talk about mischaracterization.
A few of the others for you since you don't see them:
[31] "The role of technology in online misinformation"
[7] "Who 'Created' Covid?"
[11] "How social media platforms are fighting coronavirus misinformation"
[28] "MAGA speech clashes with coronavirus misinformation crackdown"
[54] "Twitter bans Zero Hedge after it posts coronavirus conspiracy theory"
[3] "Conceptualizing "Dark Platforms". Covid-19-Related Conspiracy Theories on 8kun and Gab"
Here's a direct quote from that last one:
> ZeroHedge is infamous for making controversial commentaries on socio-political issues; during the pandemic, its Twitter account was suspended for propagating conspiratorial claims that blamed the Wuhan Institute of Virology for creating the novel coronavirus.
By all means don't take it seriously, but in the interest of conversation, Tyler Durden is a pretty obvious reference to the quote "On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero". Would you be more inclined to take a website seriously if they simply said their articles were penned by "anonymous"?
ETA: One thing I appreciate about ZeroHedge is that they include their sources. For example there was an article earlier today about a court ruling and the text of the ruling itself was embedded right there, inline with the article. Similarly when they mention a post on Twitter you can usually read the tweet for yourself and decide if their analysis is appropriate. That is a breath of fresh air after spending time on so many news sites (both major and more "fringe" ones) that just expect you to take them at their word. I'm not saying everyone should follow their lead exactly, but is it too much to ask that the primary source that is the focus of an article at least be linked somewhere at the bottom of the page, CNN?
As far as I can tell from the dates in the article it looks like these are all incidents from the old version of the pistol. If so it is a well-known issue. If you're interested the phrase to google is "p320 drop safe". There is a (free) voluntary upgrade if you have one of the affected models. https://www.sigsauer.com/p320-voluntary-upgrade-program
>(2) An employer shall disclose in each posting for each job opening the hourly or salary compensation, or a range of the hourly or salary compensation, and a general description of all of the benefits and other compensation to be offered to the hired applicant.
>Upon finding that an employer has violated this part 2, the director may order the employer to pay a fine of no less than five hundred dollars and no more than ten thousand dollars per violation.
It seems that people who recommend LLSI rarely mention the accompanying workbooks. Do you feel like they are a good value add, or is Famillia Romana strong enough on its own?
Consider the perspective someone who does not know anything about this book previous to reading your comment. Searching Amazon for Hans H. Ørberg is not likely to make it clear which book (or books) you are actually recommending.
Discrimination based on skin color is morally reprehensible. Doing it systematically at an institutional level is particularly damaging.
The 'conservative party' as you put it recognizes this. The 'other party' only recognizes it for certain skin colors, which is a subset of the aforementioned discrimination based on skin color.
So yes, you are correct in that the ends of the conservative party seem to be to end racial discrimination. The ends of the other party appear to be stoking racial hatred to garner support based on an outdated perception of their role.
I much prefer the conservative take on this issue in 2022.
> We can all appreciate the aesthetic beauty of rounded corners.
Can we? Much like that top 40 song that comes on the radio way too often, I have come to find all the rounded corners off-putting. They are usually a signal of form over function, and often used by information sparse sites.
Give me square corners like HackerNews, old Reddit, or Vanguard any day.
I'm not saying that it isn't dangerous. I'm saying that the 'levels' system seems to be broken. When "imminent danger of becoming an active war zone" is at the same level as "health risks similar to traveling domestically" the 'levels' no longer communicate much of use.
This would be more impactful if 3/4 of the world wasn't already at "Level 4: Do Not Travel". As it is, it signals that Ukraine is as dangerous as such countries as Australia, Canada, France, The United Kingdom, Norway, and Sweden each of which is also listed as Do Not Travel. You will definitely me much saver traveling to Libya, Mexico, Pakistan, or Madagascar (Level 2: Reconsider Travel) than to any of those places...
As much as I would like for them to be, I'm not sure that Department of State travel advisories are a useful indicator of traveler safety at this time.
To be clear, I'm not saying this warning isn't serious, just that the system has been abused to the point it's harder to signal urgency.
> Still, some people point back and use the evolving knowledge as argument that nothing is knowable and we shouldn’t do anything.
And some people point back and use the censorship of people who turned out to be correct as an argument that we were way too quick to leverage the 'misinformation' label to suppress the truth.
I agree. However, that is the law currently. I'd love to see it changed but until then I don't see why these people should get an exemption just because they are rich.
If I were pulled over with hundreds of thousands of dollars in cash I would be expected to prove that it was obtained legally. Unfortunately for the persons involved here the cash was obtained in a manner that is not legal in the United States.
To be clear, I think Civil Asset Forfeiture should be abolished and that all recreational drugs should be made legal. However, that is not the case and I don't think these particular drug dealers should get a pass just because they have more money / political clout than other drug dealers.
> This section describes two methods for checking the primality of an integer n, one with order of growth Theta(sqrt(n)), and a 'probabilistic' algorithm with order of growth Theta(log n).
The book explains order of growth a few pages before this example, so the only assumed knowledge here is what a prime number is, which seems very reasonable.
> Fermat's Little Theorem: If n is a prime number and a is any positive integer less than n, then a raised to the nth power is congruent to a modulo n.
That's the concise definition of Fermat's Little theorem, that he then proceeds to explain in detail. Again, not presupposed knowledge, but something new to learn. He explains congruent modulo, so you are expected to know what prime numbers are, and what positive integers are. Again, CS books from MIT are not for you if you don't know those two things.
> When we first introduced the square-root procedure, in section 1.1.7, we mentioned that this was a special case of Newton's method. If x -> g(x) is a differentiable function, then a solution of the equation g(x) = 0 is a fixed point of the function x -> f(x) where [complex formula] and Dg(x) is the derivative of g evaluated at x.
This one assumes that you understand the material from section 1.1.7. I think you've succeeded in making a case for reading the book and completing the exercises in order, but not that it places unreasonable expectations on its reader.
The argument was over whether Covid-19 evolved naturally and was spread to humans from a colony of wild bats or was engineered at the Wuhan Institute of Virology and was subsequently leaked. The leak theory was, in those unenlightened times, considered "right wing propaganda".
This is the article in question if you care to read it: https://www.zerohedge.com/health/man-behind-global-coronavir...
The article says that the outbreak probably originated from the lab, and this is the guy that is capable of engineering it. It then goes on to list papers he published and research he was involved in. That list of papers, and the job posting cited in the article coupled with the geographic origin of the infection being colocated with the lab sure look like evidence to me. Circumstantial evidence, sure, but evidence all the same. Talk about mischaracterization.