realreality

18 ms·

91.
by realreality 5y ago
Even when it's conclusive, it should never become "not up for discussion". That's the realm of blind faith.
92.
by realreality 5y ago
> science-based and not up for discussion You realize this is a contradiction, right?
93.
by realreality 5y ago
Are immunocompromised people exempt from the mandate? If they're working next to anybody, vaccinated or not, they're at risk of getting sick. New rule: every googler who works near immunocompromised coworkers has to wear a mask.
94.
by realreality 5y ago
Exposure to the virus does not automatically result in developing COVID-19 (the disease). In a healthy person, the innate immune system will neutralize the virus in the mucosal membranes of the nose. Eventually, most everyone will be expose
95.
by realreality 5y ago
That's total deaths, not the death rate, which was 28.9 per 100,000.
96.
by realreality 5y ago
The greenest site is the one that never gets built in the first place. We need to be honest about how much energy is being spent on unnecessary activity.
97.
by realreality 5y ago
They’re only carbon neutral if you replant what you’ve cut down.
98.
by realreality 5y ago
You deliberately missed my point, which was about how and where the virus spreads, regardless of vaccination rates. Transmission happens where people are crammed together. The Provincetown case from the summer vividly illustrated how this a
99.
by realreality 5y ago
J&J is not like other most other vaccines. It uses an adenovirus vector to do the same thing that the mRNA vaccines do. If you're worried about that, get Sinovac or Covaxin, which are the only traditional, inactivated virus vaccine
100.
by realreality 5y ago
It isn't infecting everyone or affecting everyone equally. Generally, more dense and poor areas have higher case rates. It doesn't make sense to apply the same restrictions everywhere, if your odds of catching the virus happen to
101.
by realreality 5y ago
I think banning tobacco ads is not the same situation because the entities behind them are corporations. The corporations mislead the public for decades in order to get people addicted, purely for profit. The public harm done was a negative
102.
by realreality 5y ago
We ban cigarette advertisements because there was finally a social consensus that addiction to tobacco products is harmful. But it’s still completely legal to get yourself addicted. On the other hand, there’s no consensus about the harm fro
103.
by realreality 5y ago
I prefer if we prevent harm by addressing the underlying conditions, rather than trying to control the spread of ideas. As long as we’re in a mindset of having to destroy all contagions (whether they’re proteins or thoughts), we’re going to
104.
by realreality 5y ago
If your definition of harmful boils down to "results in people getting killed", then: ban fossil fuel advertisements; ban advertisements for the military or content that glorifies militarism; ban any content that encourages people
105.
by realreality 5y ago
That will go well with the Amazin Laser https://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/amazin-laser/2...
106.
by realreality 5y ago
What is Epcot supposed to smell like? The future?
107.
by realreality 5y ago
> Perhaps in a year or two the existing vaccines will have proven so effective that COVID-19 becomes not much more than a nuisance. This sentence won't age well.
108.
by realreality 5y ago
The real-life efficacy at preventing transmission is waning by the day, it seems.
109.
by realreality 5y ago
The current vaccines will not prevent kids from spreading the virus to their grandparents.
110.
by realreality 5y ago
Create some sort of entity that hands out money to people who agree to pay the money back in the future, plus some percentage interest. If anybody figures out how to do this, they could make a lot of profit.
111.
by realreality 5y ago
A carbon tax might've worked if implemented a couple of decades ago, when it could be gradually increased over time, and giving industries time to adapt. It is meant to be a gentle way for the government to change behavior. But the sca
112.
by realreality 5y ago
No. Capitalism is not capable of addressing the climate and ecological crisis.
113.
by realreality 5y ago
We currently use a huge amount of energy, only a tiny fraction of which comes from wind and solar [1]. Transitioning all energy to renewable is not just a matter of swapping out one source for another. [2] [1] https://twitter.com
114.
by realreality 5y ago
Costa Rica’s per capita electricity use (about 400W right now) is less than half of New York state’s (about 1kW). Solutions to fossil fuel use are going to have to involve drastic cuts in our electricity consumption.
115.
by realreality 5y ago
The problem is political and cultural, not technical. As long as powerful people want to maintain their power, they're going to exploit the earth for temporary gain.
116.
by realreality 5y ago
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/only-60-years-of-...
117.
by realreality 5y ago
Citation needed. We’re 50 years away from running out of topsoil. Combine that with many other resources that are running out, and the compounding crises of climate and biodiversity loss. We’re not a few techno tweaks away from sustainabili
118.
by realreality 5y ago
Indigenous people learned how to deal with psychopaths. Our culture lacks the safeguards against greed and antisocial behavior. In fact, we encourage those disorders, for the sake of “progress”. https://aeon.co/essays/w
119.
by realreality 5y ago
We don’t need more geniuses. We need take power away from psychopaths who run the world.
120.
by realreality 5y ago
We’ve known for a long time that biofuels are an unsustainable scam. https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748703574604574500...

More ›