mandmandam

84 ms·

1081.
by mandmandam 3y ago
I was happy to see someone making this point, eventually. If the scientists formed their own spin-off limited liability company, declared bankruptcy days later, then gave ~$350 to J&J; that would make the playing field a bit more even.
1082.
by mandmandam 3y ago
You've missed the point. The fact is, most of the US does support healthcare. That doesn't matter to the legislators. They have lobbyists convincing them to fight against any public option, they don't want to piss off the
1083.
by mandmandam 3y ago
> The best I could come up with is "support for public healthcare" ... Wouldn't that be more than enough? They can easily spend tens of billions on advertising, in order to make hundreds of billions. You'd expect them
1084.
by mandmandam 3y ago
> It is a point worth making. Do you mean, in relation to the OP's claim that Wim Hof training is "unlikely to help you"? How so?
1085.
by mandmandam 3y ago
> There is also evidence that Wim Hof's abilities are not related to his lifestyle I think you're misinterpreting the point of that study. "A lifestyle with frequent exposures to extreme cold does not seem to affect BAT ac
1086.
by mandmandam 3y ago
From your own link: > Two studies have had significant, promising results. One had a small group of people practice the technique for eight weeks while they prepared to travel to Antarctica. They didn’t find significant chemical changes,
1087.
by mandmandam 3y ago
> It is unlikely to help you, either, of course I don't think that's true, or fair to say... > there also isn't anything robust to link it to, well, anything. That's not really fair either. Wim Hof has been working
1088.
by mandmandam 3y ago
I think the reference to Jefferson, as if modern lobbying is a foundation of US Democracy, is extraordinarily distasteful. Here are some entire books written by people who studied this issue in great depth: "The Business of Ame
1089.
by mandmandam 3y ago
Pretending horrible bastards aren't 'lobbying' isn't going to fix the problem. The one-word problem here could be 'lobbyists' or 'lawmakers' or 'bribery' or 'exploitation'. It coul
1090.
by mandmandam 3y ago
No I'm not, and no it isn't. It's a response to the notion that the quote above comparing writing prompts to alchemy is so wrong that it's funny in some way. I thought it was a pretty good analogy.
1091.
by mandmandam 3y ago
We don't know for sure what he did or didn't get. It could be something tangible, or intangible, or both - how would we know? Who knows how much tax Musk saved the .01% over the next ten years by crushing Twitter? It could literal
1092.
by mandmandam 3y ago
Well, if I were going to pull off a plan like this, I might fake a fight with a 'rival' social network ,while actually having some kind of deal with them. It's magic 101 - look at my hands. Don't look over there. Conside
1093.
by mandmandam 3y ago
My current favorite conspiracy theory is that Musk is deliberately killing Twitter, having been funded to do so. Who paid for Twitter's acquisition? Musk, big banks, a Saudi prince, and Larry Ellison (read: biiig money). What has Twi
1094.
by mandmandam 3y ago
If we're quoting HN comment guidelines, you're supposed to interpret comments in the best possible light - which you are clearly not doing. The OP is not trolling. They're referring to a type of justification for censorship t
1095.
by mandmandam 3y ago
Semantics. If you 'encourage' everything that isn't news and politics, with an unaccountable algorithm, that's precisely the same effect as simply down-ranking news and politics. > it's always possible compan
1096.
by mandmandam 3y ago
I think this entire article has missed the point. For all the blather about enabling creatives, the fact is that the moment one of those creatives "gets political" (as determined by Threads, however they want, with no human appea
1097.
by mandmandam 3y ago
I'm honestly curious why you find this funny? Many fields of study have this fuzzy property - it's easier to name which fields don't .
1098.
by mandmandam 3y ago
Did I say that tweets alone solve anything?
1099.
by mandmandam 3y ago
> You seem to feel fairly certain that humanity is "on a path" Look at a climate graph. That's the path I'm talking about. Look into the Anthropocene Extinction - that's us. We're walking that path; or more
1100.
by mandmandam 3y ago
That is a very fair point - this is quite possibly an issue right across "the West" (which can include NZ in this case). I've noticed it in Ireland, in France, in Germany. Even the Scandos seem not to be immune. I'll hav
1101.
by mandmandam 3y ago
Indeed - there seems to be a concerted attack on nuance, and even thinking. Great people like Stallman, Tesla, Feynman, Chomsky, Assange and Snowden, etc, are smeared and dismissed due to unrelated, out of context, twisted, false selections
1102.
by mandmandam 3y ago
It is what it is. That's life. Don't overthink it. ... Seems to me that these clichés grew rapidly in the last couple decades. The fact that people just accept without challenge that Threads will de-platform anything "politic
1103.
by mandmandam 3y ago
That was also within a few years of Bush W making moves to cut protest effectiveness, such as the free speech zones. Not to mention, there are plenty of examples of social media creating very effective protests, which then inspired heavy ha
1104.
by mandmandam 3y ago
I guess the part where I'm confused is how you think de-platforming politics at mass population scale will increase civil engagement somehow. Like, isn't "small text blurbs" better than nothing? ... Do you think bill
1105.
by mandmandam 3y ago
The internet is saturated with ridiculous caricatures of politics. These mostly existed before, but have been grossly exacerbated by algorithms which make people angry on purpose so as to 'drive engagement' (hmm). Facebook is no
1106.
by mandmandam 3y ago
I'm not going to debate whether or not fossil fuel executives choosing to lie to us and burn the planet is moral or rational, "because teleology". Ugh.
1107.
by mandmandam 3y ago
> By pointing to rational or moral failures, you already imply that we are supposed to act in a certain way. Don't keep such an open mind that your brain falls out. > If it is irrational that history repeats itself, do you think
1108.
by mandmandam 3y ago
Nah, not really. History has been repeating itself for thousands of years. We keep killing the prophets, and putting the absolute worst of us on pedestals. What's rational about that? Dolphins mucking about in the water - that's
1109.
by mandmandam 3y ago
I've heard nerf used colloquially since like the 90's. ?
1110.
by mandmandam 3y ago
Do you have credentials or sources for these odd claims and false equivalences? Do you have them on paper?

More ›