guscost

48 ms·

481.
by guscost 6y ago
This book is absolutely, by no means, a “bad faith” effort. That accusation is extremely unfair and destructive.
482.
by guscost 6y ago
See also: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.05.27.20114546v...
483.
by guscost 6y ago
Non-scientific does not mean unfounded. There are plenty of citations provided (from published journal articles and preprints wherever possible) to support my speculation. They're hyperlinks, which is a bit tongue-in-cheek as an editor
484.
by guscost 6y ago
The crux of the argument is: 1. Respiratory viruses typically evolve to become attenuated after jumping between species, and this new one will move to the "sweet spot" where all other human coronaviruses proliferate, if it becomes
485.
by guscost 6y ago
Most of my claims are speculation, and can only be proven or disproven by the passage of time. The point is that I'm on record making (somewhat poetically non-scientific) predictions. Will you check back in a year? I'm not happy a
486.
by guscost 6y ago
Then you have my respect, and hopefully it has a net-positive effect.
487.
by guscost 6y ago
We do not agree about what is best for the commons. You are constructing a straw monster, but the opposition is largely operating in good faith.
488.
by guscost 6y ago
Just being candid, in case anyone is under the delusion that it might be worth trying.
489.
by guscost 6y ago
I try not to comment on voting habits, it distracts from the discussion. I think that's discouraged by the HN guidelines too.
490.
by guscost 6y ago
My honest reaction to this is fury, but let me instead only say that we do not agree about what is best for the commons, and I will never allow you to coerce me into going along with your plan.
491.
by guscost 6y ago
> Even then I'm aware we're still completely in the dark of what long term effects this might have. Do you have any worries about that? Nope. I don't have time for (what I see as) irrational paranoia. I've judged the
492.
by guscost 6y ago
> To imply that a life without Sunday brunch is somehow lesser or worse is myopic. It is worse. Claiming otherwise would be arguing that immunocompromised, sedentary, etc folks are just as privileged as myself.
493.
by guscost 6y ago
We are not. You’re free to throw away another year of your life cooped up indoors because of a miniscule (for most people) risk that is not going anywhere, but most people will choose otherwise.
494.
by guscost 6y ago
Just to recommit to my prediction, there will be no second peak of the virus until the winter (in the northern hemisphere), and even then it will do about as much damage as the regular cold.
495.
by guscost 6y ago
> In 2-3 weeks, a brutal "second wave" is just ... guaranteed. And, it'll be presented as a "surprise"! Who could have possibly predicted it! By golly, we'll have to really put the hammer down, this time! I
496.
by guscost 6y ago
It may be possible for a person to succeed with #3, but I have a hard time believing it could work in a community of people who disagree. For #4, the closest thing I can imagine is a utilitarian approach, which of course I’m going to pref
497.
by guscost 6y ago
Thank you for the feedback (and for all the moderation work). It can be hard to detach and focus on the “purely informational” substance of an argument, but you are right that that is pretty much always for the best. This is going to sound
498.
by guscost 6y ago
The HCQ thing is a complete shit show, it has been politicized to the point where everyone pretty much just says whatever they want about it. It might be helpful as a prophylactic or with milder cases (when used in smaller doses). Other stu
499.
by guscost 6y ago
I don’t think you understand. The “people” in my statement are not politicians, they are charlatans, whining whenever their uncertain theories are not used by politicians to dictate how everyone must behave, which according to some mental
500.
by guscost 6y ago
We can't easily validate models of reality that are complex/stochastic, because any experimental result could be a statistical anomaly. In particular this is a problem for models of long-term and/or global phenomena like clim
501.
by guscost 6y ago
The botched response to COVID-19 will bring the whole institution of modern science crashing down, when all is said and done. Maybe you don't want to believe that, but there it is: https://guscost.com/2020/05/
502.
by guscost 6y ago
> Four conditions must be satisfied to have a valid scientific theory: (1) There is a mathematical model expressing the theory. (2) Precise relationships, known as “operational definitions,” are specified between terms in the theory and
503.
by guscost 6y ago
Never again should we allow people to pretend that their favorite brand of uncertainty deserves special accommodation.
504.
by guscost 6y ago
If science is truly what you describe, then it has no place in the making of public policy. Never again.
505.
by guscost 6y ago
The problem is that YouTube can do this kind of thing on purpose, with no consequences, whenever they want to. We have no legal recourse according to precedent, our only option is to stir up a PR backlash big enough that they "notice
506.
by guscost 6y ago
I don't think so, because immunity would not be revoked across-the-board, but rather it would be conditional on their censorship policies. I think these companies would rather deal with the consequences of unsavory-but-legal content, t
507.
by guscost 6y ago
YouTube is not one of these already? Regardless of whether you agree with net neutrality, it has the effect of tilting the market for net traffic in favor of video streaming services.
508.
by guscost 6y ago
Swatting, doxing, and harassment are all forms of trolling. It can have lethal consequences, and these are already variously illegal for good reasons.
509.
by guscost 6y ago
> You know that porn and beheadings are already explicitly not protected speech in the US and elsewhere? OK cool, that resolves the parent's objection. I did not know that. > You know that comment moderation on a privately owned
510.
by guscost 6y ago
I would probably call your position on this issue "noise", too, but that's unfair.

More ›