5 ms·
The data from this study is pretty definitive that it decreases your odds, not increases them.
by slashdev 3y ago
The data from this study is pretty definitive that it decreases your odds, not increases them.
- pohl 3y agoThat won't stop 'em. Confidently-asserted lies are more compelling, it seems.
- MarcoZavala 3y ago[dead]
- tempfortwitt90 3y ago[flagged]
- slashdev 3y agoI could see that. It's irrational, but people are often irrational.
- peterfirefly 3y agoI take massive downvotes as a sign of my being right. I got massively downvoted on reddit in 2014 by putinbots, for example. I also regularly get downvoted here when I'm right.
- _a_a_a_ 3y agoThat is both arrogant and 95% of the time wrong. Accordingly, I have upvoted you. Take it how you will.
- peterfirefly 3y agoI am currently at -2 :)
- tempfortwitt90 3y agoIMO hes technically right. If you're wrong, people correct you. If you're right but they know they can't really argue the matter, they downvote.
- Dylan16807 3y agoPeople downvote wrong posts plenty on top of corrections, or if they just don't want to bother.
- _a_a_a_ 3y agoSome HN'ers aren't very bright, is all.
- striking 3y agoIt's boring flamebait. I don't disagree with you but I've read this comment a hundred times and it doesn't seem especially necessary in this conversation compared to any other.
- nequo 3y agoI think you might be getting the down votes because antivaxers will always find a way to justify their vaccine fears, so it is futile to insert them into the discussion when it isn’t about them.
- lamontcg 3y agoYou're probably getting downvoted by: 1. antivaxxers (there's a pile of them here on HN). 2. toxic positivity (people who think you are the problem because you're being so negative). 3. reading comprehension challenged (lots of people just don't parse sarcasm and irony well at all). Those three add up to a lot.
- rootusrootus 3y agoFirst on the list is probably the folks who are tired of reading uninspired political comments about the opposition. Whether I agree with the sentiment or not, I can recognize that it serves no useful purpose. Nobody who reads what I write here is going to change their ideology as a result.
- mistrial9 3y agopolarizing people into "us versus them" as the intro sentence has one aim only; not welcome here.
- chiefalchemist 3y agoNot really. They used the cutoff date to develop a theory. That is, those before the date couldn't get the vax vs those after the date that did. So far, so good. However, not everyone after the date got the vax. That is, like tge before date "control" there are a post-date group who also did not get the vax. Oddly, there's no mention how this group fared. Obviously, they know this group exist. And that the initial theory would be ideal to apply to this group. That didn't happen. That would be definite. As it is, a key and obvious piece is missing.