deugo

7 ms·

1.
by deugo 5y ago
Interesting read. I found it racist and sexist. Yet, it attacks racism and sexism. How the author portrays the Timnit-Gebru drama is unjust. It was Gebru who withheld her paper for internal review, trying to throw a monkey-wrench in the pro
2.
by deugo 5y ago
Yes.
3.
by deugo 5y ago
Working backwards from February 2020. About 3 weeks after Peter Daszak started his wild PR campaign. Pretty impressive for a group of amateurs to still beat the pros to the finish line. Because here we are. Finally discussing it. This site
4.
by deugo 5y ago
> There is exactly fuckoff zero evidence that funding wound up supporting gain of function research for anything. From the Fauci e-mails: People Fauci directly worked with seemed surprised and shocked to learn otherwise, and could not ev
5.
by deugo 5y ago
https://drasticresearch.org/ to see some real hackers at work. Media, governments, and scientists should take a stronger stand now, or they will not protect amateurs against the full wrath of more unsavory elements of hosti
6.
by deugo 5y ago
> After China announced there was human-to-human transmission, European countries did almost nothing for another month. No, they started procuring masks and other PPE, but found that China had already conquered that market, before thei
7.
by deugo 5y ago
With what specifically? All of it, even the quote? If we are going to do an appeal to Oracle authority by proxy, I should at least get to interrogate it, and I agree, that would get tedious fast. Maybe he can comment? I am not really sugges
8.
by deugo 5y ago
> In late January 2020, China: Announced there was human-to-human transmission. China announced it way too late. https://apnews.com/article/united-nations-health-ap-top-news... > Throughout January, the World Hea
9.
by deugo 5y ago
The WHO was put under tremendous pressure and suffered information-blackout by China. As a result of this blackout, not long-standing policy, the WHO suggested there was no proof of human to human transmission. As a result of this pressure
10.
by deugo 5y ago
> As I just explained, the WHO's recommendations on travel restrictions are based on the International Health Regulations (2005). General recommendations! Not a playbook from 2005 you pull out for dealing with an upcoming pandemic!
11.
by deugo 5y ago
The WHO was pressured into saying not to ban flights from China. Made worse by the fact that China itself was nailing domestic flight from Wuhan to the pillars of shame for eternity. https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/blog
12.
by deugo 5y ago
> People also didn't listen to him about wind turbines causing cancer. Asked why he was not in favor of wind mills, Trump answered once, that "they say" it can cause cancer. "They say" is https://en.wi
13.
by deugo 5y ago
https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/transcr... Coronavirus press conference 11 February, 2020 Tedros gives the money quote: > That was exactly what we were trying to do in DRC so we don&#x
14.
by deugo 5y ago
Slight of hand. We were not discussing the credibility of an academic researcher, we were to discuss the contents and logical merit of their submission. Both were ad-hominem. The first one also suffers from a pompous bias: What does it even
15.
by deugo 5y ago
I do feel their frustration. For many this has been on their mind for over a year now, and science and media painted them as racist conspiracy theorists. I am not sure about HN. But on everywhere else on the internet right now, this issue
16.
by deugo 5y ago
I do not think it is basic and, in the field, hugely controversial. They tried really hard to keep that discussion inside the field, not allowing the general public to have a say in if they want to tax-fund the creation of pandemic-potentia
17.
by deugo 5y ago
Formally: Trying to predict spillover events. Ranking viruses by risk. They do this by having the virus infect human cells, so they can estimate if this would happen naturally in the future. Another is to work on vaccines. Informally: Milit
18.
by deugo 5y ago
If a gang in my street, they better be on my payroll. And I expect them to provide stability better than the Mafia ever can. But if you say my payment of a private security force directly leads to the formation of criminal gangs, and I am s
19.
by deugo 5y ago
I think the American health care system is a current dystopia: people are going bankrupt in a first-world country for contracting the terrible disease. Once basic protection, education, healthcare, etc. is offered to anyone (I do not see Am
20.
by deugo 5y ago
Completely agree. Should not have taken a jab at it (maybe a reaction to those both supporting defunding public police and also vocally opposing my decisions in a private market to recover my security). IMO The entire justice system should
21.
by deugo 5y ago
Security forces are professionals, and professionals at dealing with such situations. They'd be very bad at their job if they armed intervened in non-violent or non-pressing crimes. It is like expecting your Uber driver to take a short
22.
by deugo 5y ago
I do not equate them. I value unbiased professionals over amateurs "protecting their turf". If there are crimes happening which require armed intervention, that is exactly a reason for having a professional security force. If the
23.
by deugo 5y ago
To me, your argument amounts to: you are rich enough to afford something, but poor people are not, so buying something unaffordable to the poor is a bad thing to do. If anything, if 50% of the neighborhood has this subscription, and you are
24.
by deugo 5y ago
The neighborhood watch is often staffed by amateurs. Security forces are trained professionals. If a neighborhood watch is necessary, then an on-demand security force seems better. What would you think happens if you abuse this service to c
25.
by deugo 5y ago
I can't afford a private chauffeur, but I can afford an Uber Black. I can't afford a private security force, but I could afford an on-demand subscription. You want to defund the tax-paid police? Go right ahead! Now I want to colle