seppin

44 ms·

361.
by seppin 6y ago
In fact, they can't imagine a world that doesn't operate this way.
362.
by seppin 6y ago
I think it's more "if they dont care they'll quit when it gets hard" thinking.
363.
by seppin 6y ago
> If two chess players of equal skill play a match, the result is a coin flip. That doesn’t mean they don’t know what they’re doing. No, but it does mean they aren't any more skilled than anyone else on the same level. They surely c
364.
by seppin 6y ago
I wouldn't call guessing with slightly better odds than a coin flip "extrapolating the future". Do continue ignoring all the massive failures and continuous capital / opportunity these supposed kingmakers have.
365.
by seppin 6y ago
> believing their past experience can extrapolate a future they don’t understand Imagine thinking anyone knows what will happen in the future.
366.
by seppin 6y ago
> You raise an interesting point when you ask me to explain why I think HN is anti-China. It was so self-evident to me, but apparently you don't experience it as such. Maybe the HN crowd is not so much anti-China, but rather just mi
367.
by seppin 6y ago
My rule for pointing out small inconsistencies is: "does it change the point of the argument?" My point was it's the only tool to communicate with a large part of the world, 1/5 or 1/6 is immaterial.
368.
by seppin 6y ago
You just keep saying "everyone is anti-China" over and over without clarifying what you actually mean. Your insistence on not making a distinction between the CCP and the Chinese people makes it hard to engage in any discussion, a
369.
by seppin 6y ago
First section: > It requires network operators to store select data within China and allows Chinese authorities to conduct spot-checks on a company's network operations. More has been reported about the implications of the law: >
370.
by seppin 6y ago
Because it's the only way to communicate with 1/5 of the world's population?
371.
by seppin 6y ago
VPN's are becoming increasingly difficult to use.
372.
by seppin 6y ago
On other countries, not on their own citizens with the intention of censoring and persecuting political crimes. Big difference.
373.
by seppin 6y ago
> meaning it's absolutely impossible to communicate with Chinese people from the outside world, aside from a very small number of carefully vetted services like WeChat. I've never heard it phrased this way before, dangerous ind
374.
by seppin 6y ago
> As someone who's neutral (not even supportive) about the CCP, I can only hope that they become that competent within a decade. You don't sound very neutral.
375.
by seppin 6y ago
> It is valid to be concerned about the Chinese government exercising control of some sort over the local development team to put in a backdoor, just as our government seems to want to do to US developed products. Chinese companies legal
376.
by seppin 6y ago
> If someone first makes a false accusation, then post a “correction” only to double down on a lesser yet still false accusation, I’d say it’s reason enough to conclude that they’re arguing in bad faith and attempting to slander. You are
377.
by seppin 6y ago
Nothing?
378.
by seppin 6y ago
In that case COVID19 will play out like the 1918 flu, it will hit in waves that only mass quarantine will help mitigate, until enough immunity is reached. Likely 18 months - 2 years.
379.
by seppin 6y ago
They'd made those conclusions in < 3 months? What is your source?
380.
by seppin 6y ago
If those SARS numbers are in the same vein as what is true for COVID19, the only answer is a vaccine. Otherwise our current state of affairs is the new normal for the foreseeable future.
381.
by seppin 6y ago
> No, it's not a "significant risk". It's basically the flu to the young. Normally being wrong on the internet is just ignorable, this isn't. At its best, this is 10x more deadly that the flu (more so for young p
382.
by seppin 6y ago
Most antibodies to viruses don't last forever, the question is not if you can get COVID19 twice (you almost surely can) but how long in-between are you protected. And the evidence is unclear, and in some cases worrying: https:/&#
383.
by seppin 6y ago
> Also YouTube removing the videos from 2 highly credentialed doctors is a verifiable fact, not some subjective theory. Those 2 "highly credentialed doctors" just got an unprecedentedly strong and universal condemnation from th
384.
by seppin 6y ago
How do you compel anyone to do anything with violence? Many ways.
385.
by seppin 6y ago
>And really, the idea that news media need to herd their audience into thinking the right things is ridiculous. No, but they need to determine which story is based on the best possible information at the time, and which isn't. Which
386.
by seppin 6y ago
> Given Snowden's revelations What did Snowden reveal about government influence over private sector censorship? I must have missed it.
387.
by seppin 6y ago
> Put a banner up. Identify it with Mr Yuck sticker. Don't remove it as if it never existed. That's dangerous, no? You misunderstand how wrong information, identified as such, is received. https://www.politico.com&#x
388.
by seppin 6y ago
You misunderstand the word "monopoly". Youtube is where the exposure is, they technology for hosting videos is a commodity. In other words, no one has the "right" to Youtube's distribution and promotion. Put you vid
389.
by seppin 6y ago
> You mean the experts that said no human to human transmission? Perfect example, no expert said there was no human to human nor is there any chance of it. The only language close to that was "there isn't any proof of it now&qu
390.
by seppin 6y ago
> There's what you love, and there's what you do. It's best to keep some distance: Underrated piece of advice. Keep the way you make money and your passions separate. You love photography? Great, do it on weekends. If you

More ›