prev <-> next
[2021-09-08 19:52:07] - god i will never learn to spell imminent correctly. ~a
[2021-09-08 19:50:32] - paul: "Why was Trump kicked off? Questioning an election?" no, you know that was not why he was kicked off. "Incitement to violence to overthrow a government?" eminent incitement of violence. further violence. "glorification of violence". "Asking for a military coup doesn't count?" honestly i'm not sure! seems non-specific and non-eminent. still, maybe? ~a
[2021-09-08 19:48:36] - paul: as i said before, and you switch abrams with trump, and kemp with biden, and you had called it "trump's chair" i still wouldn't consider that questioning the legitimacy of an election result. also, check the policy on questioning the legitimacy of an election result. it's pretty specific, and this probably wouldn't apply. ~a
[2021-09-08 19:44:57] - a: " i don't see that as a questioning of legitimacy of an election result." Maybe I'm missing something? How is it Abrams' chair, then? -Paul
[2021-09-08 19:42:23] - This isn't about whether Trump was a giant asshole. This is about what the rules of censorship are on twitter. Why was Trump kicked off? Questioning an election? Plenty of democrats have done that. Incitement to violence to overthrow a government? Asking for a military coup doesn't count? -Paul
[2021-09-08 19:41:46] - paul: "The questioning of legitimacy of an election result?" you're talking about this? i don't see that as a questioning of legitimacy of an election result. "The very thing that apparently was so grave that it gets people kicked off twitter now", where did that happen? ~a
[2021-09-08 19:40:19] - a: "wtf is wrong with that tweet?" The questioning of legitimacy of an election result? The very thing that apparently was so grave that it gets people kicked off twitter now (as long as they are questioning the right... or wrong... election). -Paul
[2021-09-08 19:10:18] - paul: maybe you just don't like twitter? i'm kinda glad i'm not in charge of twitter, because i'm not sure i'd like to make these kinds of decisions. and inaction also seems problematic. ~a
[2021-09-08 19:09:00] - paul: "Get something glaringly wrong about how hospitals can't handle gunshot victims because of Ivermectin ODs and that's a-ok?" obviously its totally *not* a-ok. but, the policy only refers to removing tweets that may cause harm. in other words, yes, you can get things wrong in only one direction if you're only worried about your tweet violating the policy. ~a
[2021-09-08 19:04:47] - paul: "in terms of what?" where to start? ~a
[2021-09-08 19:03:15] - paul: "See Warren's tweet regarding 'Abrams' chair'". i did see that tweet. there's zero imminent incitement of violence, there's zero interference of elections here. wtf is wrong with that tweet? ~a
[2021-09-08 19:02:57] - a: "trump was doing faaaaar worse stuff than the democrats ever did, for like 10 full years before they finally banned him" In terms of what? Questioning election results? -Paul
[2021-09-08 19:02:02] - a: But only if it's conservatives, right? (See Warren's tweet regarding "Abrams' chair"). As for COVID, say anything that goes against official CDC guidance (whether it's wrong or not) and if you're lucky you get a big warning flag on your post (if you're unlucky, maybe you get your post taken down). Get something glaringly wrong about how hospitals can't handle gunshot victims because of Ivermectin ODs and that's a-ok? -Paul
[2021-09-08 19:01:45] - paul: "suddenly". lol, trump was doing faaaaar worse stuff than the democrats ever did, for like 10 full years before they finally banned him. ~a
[2021-09-08 18:59:43] - a: I guess it seems completely arbitrary to me and shockingly one sided. Democrats spend years complaining about fraudulent / stolen elections and advocate military coups? Silence. Trump starts talking about a stolen election and suddenly it's a major threat to democracy to even discuss it and from that point forward it has to be censored from twitter... -Paul
[2021-09-08 16:52:25] - (also, i definitely agree that this tweet is dumb. usually it's *fascists* that promote overthrowing a democratically elected government) ~a
[2021-09-08 16:44:13] - (also, that's from april 2020, i'm not sure when the civic integrity policy went into effect) ~a
[2021-09-08 16:27:26] - paul: calling for the military overthrow of a democratically elected government is against the rules? (i'm not being sarcastic. i'm seriously asking.) i guess its assumed that its inciting violence? ~a
[2021-09-08 16:25:49] - "what's the argument for removing his past tweets" it's the rules! it has always been the rules. twitter suspends accounts which violate the twitter rules. no argument needs to be made other than it has been (a good and) longstanding policy. the fact that they let him get as far as he did seems like the real double-standard. "what if I retweet one of Clinton's past tweets? Would I get censored then?" you should definitely try. ~a
[2021-09-08 16:01:57] - https://twitter.com/RickHertzberg/status/1254509734838841344 And I'm sorry, I just find it really weird how stuff like this is apparently perfectly fine and normal considering the lines that have been drawn. How is this NOT a call for a military overthrow of a democratically elected government? -Paul
[2021-09-08 15:59:27] - a: And what if I retweet one of Clinton's past tweets? Would I get censored then? -Paul
[2021-09-08 15:58:55] - a: You can make the argument that preventing him from tweeting anything new was to prevent violence (or whatever the argument was, I still actually don't know). But what's the argument for removing his past tweets if we're okay with leaving other past tweets that now run afoul of twitter rules? -Paul
[2021-09-08 14:55:33] - mig: i disagree. saying trump's chair is being used to do horrible things, wouldn't count (imo) as interfering in any elections. saying its "Stacey Abrams’ chair" is a fairly common turn of phrase and the "theft" there is probably (or possibly) implied, but def not stated. for what its worth, the claims also have to be false (i forgot to mention that earlier), and i don't see any false claims here? ~a
[2021-09-08 14:54:29] - paul: i don't follow. you know trump's account was taken down for a completely different reason. ~a
[2021-09-08 14:53:45] - 's account is still up? -Paul
[2021-09-08 14:53:39] - a: So tweets from before the policy were put into place can remain there? That's why Trump
[2021-09-08 14:49:52] - replace "Abrams" with "Trump" and "Kemp" with "Biden" and I'm sure that tweet would get a "these claims about the election are disputed" tag. - mig
[2021-09-08 14:48:37] - then we switched conversations to the holy trinity: roth conversion ladder, roth backdoor, and mega backdoor roth. ~a
[2021-09-08 14:48:35] - https://twitter.com/SenWarren/status/1375276181034045441 - mig
[2021-09-08 14:41:48] - paul: ah, stacy abrams. yeah we discussed stacey abrams already in january too. i eventually said "i honestly doubt you have any views that would get you banned from twitter, but feel free to surprise me" and you came back with "Maybe some day I will tell you privately, but I am pretty sure I am right"
~a[2021-09-08 14:35:49] - what was up with the georgia governor election? ~a
[2021-09-08 14:33:06] - paul: also from that conversation ~a
[2021-09-08 14:31:30] - paul: https://aporter.org/msg/?action=prev&prev=163250#163473 "paul: ... i just checked, the policy didn't exist in 2016, so pelosi couldn't have been violating a policy that didn't exist. (link to policies in 2018)" ~a
[2021-09-08 14:28:30] - a: Then shouldn't we be putting Hilary Clinton, Stacey Abrams, and a whole bunch of MSNBC anchors into time-out for all the talk about the 2016 election (and Georgia governor election)? -Paul
[2021-09-08 14:18:39] - paul: but regardless, saying that the whole election was fraudulent, probably counts as interference. right? ~a
[2021-09-08 14:05:36] - paul: well . . . that was just the first two sentences? it's pages and pages long. ~a
[2021-09-08 14:04:22] - a: I don't think claiming that the election was stolen does any of those things. Right? -Paul
[2021-09-08 13:55:40] - paul: you may not use twitter’s services for the purpose of manipulating or interfering in elections or other civic processes. this includes posting or sharing content that may suppress participation or mislead people about when, where, or how to participate in a civic process. ~a
[2021-09-08 13:54:17] - But his connection doesn't entirely support the claim of the journalist either that "Patients overdosing on ivermectin backing up rural Oklahoma hospitals, ambulances" -Daniel
[2021-09-08 13:53:55] - a: Wait, the war against misinformation is only for COVID info? So I can go on twitter and talk about how the election was stolen and be fine? -Paul
[2021-09-08 13:52:40] - Sorry I typed part of that sentence wrong below. . "In the article by reason this part specifically" was how that should have read. -Daniel
[2021-09-08 13:52:02] - mig: panic? who's panicking and who was harmed? ~a
[2021-09-08 13:50:55] - https://kfor.com/on-air/seen-on-tv/more-of-dr-mcelyeas-interview-with-kfor/ but he does connect them there. -Daniel
[2021-09-08 13:50:46] - Paul: I think it does seem well supported that people over reported / sensationalized Ivermetctin use but also in that article specifically by reason this part "But he never actually connects these two issues. It was the journalist, Ogle, who added that framing. She did not respond to a request for comment." is contradicted by the the video of the doctor talking to KFOR. You have to click on the see more of the video link though. -Daniel
[2021-09-08 13:50:01] - a: i think drumming up a fake panic like this almost certainly leads to harm. - mig
[2021-09-08 13:41:02] - paul: of course its not? you may not use twitter to share false or misleading information about covid-19 which may lead to harm. this clearly doesn't apply. ~a
[2021-09-08 03:37:58] - https://www.inquiremore.com/p/the-oklahoma-ivermectin-story-a-case-475 Actually, I think this article does a better job of explaining just how wrong the story ended up being. And of course, despite this being a textbook case of misinformation, it's not being taken down by twitter. -Paul
[2021-09-08 03:32:30] - https://reason.com/2021/09/06/ivermectin-overdoses-oklahoma-hospitals-rolling-stone-hoax/ Speaking of Ivermectin and the media getting a story wrong. Have you all heard about the Rolling Stone story? -Paul
[2021-09-07 21:46:44] - as an aside, I find it amusing that it looks like Bill Maher kind of hates his audience. - mig
[2021-09-07 21:46:27] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I8LxraECD5E speaking of "perspective" - mig
[2021-09-07 16:07:07] - honestly, i thought it made sense. the whole situation that led to that correction was "off". ~a
[2021-09-07 15:53:24] - That was supposed to be oof - not off in my response about the correction. Yo dawg I heard you like corrections.... -Daniel
[2021-09-07 13:47:57] - I also think the TX law is dumb but also not sure it stands forever either yet. Either way dumb to compare it straight up to taliban. -Daniel
[2021-09-07 13:47:03] - mig: Yeah off on the correction. That was definitely a widely reported thing to fuck up. -Daniel
[2021-09-07 12:36:03] - mig: that kinda changes the whole story for me. i guess paul was right, and it was just about owning people they don't like. ~a
[2021-09-07 12:31:28] - wow! yep, that is fucked. ~a
[2021-09-07 12:29:25] - a/andiel: this is a hell of a correction. - mig
[2021-09-04 13:52:57] - i mean, maybe immigrants get a choice on where to settle. but yeah that's a weird way of saying that ~a
[2021-09-04 13:49:59] - agreed. i tried to think of how to defend the statement, but really those are two topics that are not clarified by combining them. ~a
[2021-09-03 22:01:59] - https://twitter.com/NaveedAJamali/status/1433409399721283592 look I don't like the TX law either, but perspective on this one seems a bit nutty. - mig
[2021-09-02 20:18:02] - paul: ah, i think i understand your point. and i agree with your point, i guess? except when you said the thing about it only being about "owning" (you didn't say it, the tweet did). ~a
[2021-09-02 20:14:02] - a: Yes, I know. I am saying that all that is saying is that the horse dosage is leading to a lot of poison control calls. There could be a huge amount of people taking the human dose which isn't leading to poison control calls. -Paul
[2021-09-02 20:11:03] - paul: the horse pill takers somehow eclipsed the too-much-paint-huffers? ~a
[2021-09-02 20:09:51] - paul: "makes sense that the majority of poison center calls would be for doses for large animals". huh? why? are you sure you read that right? its 70 percent of all poison control calls. i would have figured at least 60 percent for the whole month would include 5 year olds sticking prescription human-pills in their mouths. or at least another 60 percent teens ODing on drugs (prescription and otherwise) taken recreationally. ~a
[2021-09-02 20:05:58] - a: "women in texas are likelier to support abortion restrictions than men" Yeah, I think there's this assumption that there is a massive gender divide when it comes to abortion but I think the gap is narrower than many think. -Paul
[2021-09-02 19:59:40] - It makes sense that the majority of poison center calls would be for doses for large animals, but is that representative of the percentage of people taking ivermectin? -Paul
[2021-09-02 18:38:40] - daniel: yeah, that middle sentence is telling. i'm obviously on your side here. it's not just about "owning" as paul suggests. ~a
[2021-09-02 18:36:59] - women in texas are likelier to support abortion restrictions than men. even among the younger generation. pretty crazy, man. link ~a
[2021-09-02 15:03:25] - Sorry that middle sentence was a quote from the wiki article. Should have had quotes. -Daniel
[2021-09-02 15:02:58] - Paul: Maybe cause people are taking it in the horse dose? In August 2021, the state of Mississippi announced that 70 percent of recent calls to poison control centers were due to people taking ivermectin in a dose formulated for large animals. So maybe they want to discourage that part? -Daniel
[2021-09-02 15:01:29] - paul: "why is it so often referred to as a horse de-worming drug when I see it in the media?" probably because humans are using the horse version, which is probably super illegal and insanely dangerous right? of course, you're only harming yourself, and the people (and horses) who need to use that drug with approval, and the people who need that ICU/emergency-room space that you're about to take up when you pop some horse meds? ~a
[2021-09-02 14:55:52] - Daniel: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivermectin I'm no expert either, but wikipedia starts off by listing a bunch of uses in humans for the drug. I think the second tweet is probably accurate: It's a non-subtle way of trying to point out the stupidity of people taking the drug. -Paul
[2021-09-02 14:54:25] - are*
[2021-09-02 14:54:18] - Paul: Probably cause people aren't getting it at animal stores / vets? To be fair I don't know much about Ivermectin and its human / non horse uses so I'm not an expert on the drug. -Daniel
[2021-09-02 14:52:44] - that that -Paul
[2021-09-02 14:52:28] - a: "to say that there is no short-term damage is pretty crazy, right?" I guess I'm saying that that's not what they are saying? I mean, every single law likely has short term damage to somebody, right? So if that was the low bar, then wouldn't everything get an emergency stay? Then what would be the point of the regular process? -Paul
[2021-09-02 14:51:29] - stay stay
~a[2021-09-02 14:51:28] - Not trying to change the topic, but wanted to post this before I forget (and I have some meetings to go to soon): https://twitter.com/ZaidJilani/status/1433438082213220358 This is a good point. Ivermectin seems like it has a LOT of legitimate uses in humans, so why is it so often referred to as a horse de-worming drug when I see it in the media? -Paul
[2021-09-02 14:51:15] - paul: this did go to scotus though. and they let the emergency stay stay denied. which is fine imo, but to say that there is no short-term damage is pretty crazy, right? ~a
[2021-09-02 14:50:09] - a: I mean, we have a process for this, right? And it's to challenge through lower courts. Not everything has to go straight to SCOTUS. I get that to some people this is a huge OMG WTF issue, but does it really require a shortcut line straight to SCOTUS? -Paul
[2021-09-02 14:50:06] - paul: "overrule a legitimately passed law" that's not how an emergency stay works. ~a
[2021-09-02 14:48:11] - a: I obviously have no secret insight into how any of this works, so the son of the former judge likely knows better, but couldn't it be a weak #1? Like, sure, this will affect people short term, but it's not such a massively damaging thing to basically overrule a legitimately passed law without it going through normal court channels? -Paul
[2021-09-02 14:44:42] - Daniel: And D's will point out that even after Obama we didn't get much movement in universal healthcare or rolling back the patriot act or bringing the troops home or whatever the issue is... -Paul
[2021-09-02 14:44:03] - paul/daniel: here's an interesting take i just heard, from a son of a former judge: if an emergency motion is denied that signifies one of two things: 1. there is no short-term damage. 2. there is basically no chance the court will rule in the same direction of the emergency motion. (non-sarcastically and honestly) i wonder which one they're going with? i.e. both seem pretty crazy to me. ~a
[2021-09-02 14:43:50] - Daniel: "what does that do to the R party" I feel like there's a lot of that going around for both parties lately. The extreme wings of both parties are pointing out that even getting their party in power often doesn't result in much. So the R's point out that Roberts has been a disappointment because of his Obamacare votes... -Paul
[2021-09-02 14:42:08] - a: "but this is definitely the kind of issue that'll eventually get up to the supreme court on appeal regardless" Well, unless the lower court does what SCOTUS would do and they just refuse to hear it and let the lower court ruling stand, right? -Paul
[2021-09-02 14:21:25] - daniel: from wikipedia: "during the first trimester, governments could not prohibit abortions at all; during the second trimester, governments could require reasonable health regulations; during the third trimester, abortions could be prohibited entirely so long as the laws contained exceptions for cases when they were necessary to save the life or health of the mother" ~a
[2021-09-02 14:20:59] - daniel: "If states can overturn it within their own borders but abortion is still available elsewhere". i think you misunderstand rvw. rvw does NOT say that abortion can be legal *somewhere*, rvw (more or less) states that abortion (before the third trimester) is to be legal everywhere. ~a
[2021-09-02 14:19:21] - daniel: "Give up on RvW?" never give up, never surrender. nah, they'll just do what they always do: try to chip away at it at the local level. ~a
[2021-09-02 14:06:45] - In terms of "overturning" RvW or not - does it count if its overturned effictively in some places but not others? If states can overturn it within their own borders but abortion is still available elsewhere how does that count? -Daniel
[2021-09-02 14:03:00] - I understand that its slightly getting ahead of where we are at, but its an interesting thing for me think about. -Daniel
[2021-09-02 14:02:49] - paul: yes i agree, they'd prefer to let the lower courts handle it, but this is definitely the kind of issue that'll eventually get up to the supreme court on appeal regardless. ~a
[2021-09-02 14:02:41] - I have a different angle that I'm curious about. If the SC doesn't let it stand what does that do to the R party which has had as such a long standing goal to get a R majority on the SC for this exact purpose? If they don't come through what does it do to the voter base? Even more extreme SC justices? Give up on RvW? -Daniel
[2021-09-02 13:57:16] - a: Yeah, this is exactly why I was iffy on making any bet. SO much grey area in terms of what laws would count AND what processes would count. For example, I don't think refusing an emergency blocking of the law means they are set on letting it stand if it gets up to the court. Maybe they would prefer letting lower courts handle it. -Paul
[2021-09-02 13:51:59] - paul: "the denial of the motion did not block other legal challenges in Texas or lower courts". i guess maybe it needs to be tested first? once its tested i guess that'll be the end (or not) of roe v wade. ~a
[2021-09-02 13:50:15] - paul: hmmmm. i don't know. maybe? i'd have to consult a legal scholar. in some ways they *have* let the law stand: by refusing the emergency motion blocking the act? if the law stands as-is, like forever, this might count as roe v wade ending. ~a
[2021-09-02 13:46:56] - a: Going back to the bet we didn't make, if SCOTUS lets this Texas law stand, would you consider this an overturning of Roe v Wade? -Paul
[2021-09-02 13:35:26] - a: Hmm I guess maybe not always then? I know states / fed gov has defended their own laws before. If it gets to Supreme Court my guess is that TX would do some sort of work / brief / something that would defend the bill. But maybe not. I don't really want to defend TX in this instance though. -Daniel
[2021-09-01 20:50:05] - i didn't know the history there, and didn't realize that henry wade did work in dallas texas. maybe we're doomed to repeat this history? ~a
[2021-09-01 20:47:35] - daniel: really? i think the passer of the law doesn't always pay for having their law overturned. henry wade (in roe vs wade), for instance, wasn't a lawmaker and wasn't a governor (he didn't sign any bills into law). he was in charge of enforcing the laws: a district attorney. ~a
[2021-09-01 20:42:00] - a: I mean sure - court costs for starters. -Daniel
[2021-09-01 20:16:14] - daniel: clap clap clap clap deep in the heart of texas. is there any downside to passing a law that you know is going to get overturned by the courts? (for the sake of argument, can we assume that this will get overturned by the courts?) ~a
[2021-09-01 19:01:31] - a: Also - w t f. -Daniel
[2021-09-01 19:01:22] - a: Wow -Daniel
[2021-09-01 18:40:54] - not the onion ~a
[2021-08-31 20:51:16] - a: It includes this quote: “It’s safer for them to be in school than to be outside of school.” Full disclosure, though, that's more about if kids can be in-person at school. It's less about preventive measures like masks in school, and the data is more mixed about that. -Paul
[2021-08-31 20:50:34] - nah i trust you. ~a
[2021-08-31 20:50:22] - a: None were on reason.com. I encourage you to do your own research if you don't want to rely on my own biased stuff, but I will leave this one article: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-01826-x (Check out the "Study Hall" section). -Paul
[2021-08-31 20:44:31] - paul: ok assuming these articles aren't on reason.com, i'm sold. (if it matters . . . i don't have any kids under twelve, so my opinion on the matter is pretty distinctly separated from any real world effects.) ~a
[2021-08-31 20:41:06] - a: There are even a few articles about how COVID spread seems more common outside of school (teachers catching it from the grocery store or restaurants or whatever). And that makes sense, because in school adults are probably kept more separated than they are in most other indoor locations. -Paul
[2021-08-31 20:39:39] - a: "is that difference . . . enough?" That's the billion dollar question. I can post a dozen links to news articles that all basically say the same thing: That the evidence seems to indicate that schools are not significant sources of COVID spread, and in those instances where they are, it is often high schools. -Paul
[2021-08-31 20:39:07] - i skipped that sentence when reading, my bad. ~a
[2021-08-31 20:38:36] - a: "you also left off the long-term effects of covid" Are we not talking about long COVID? Because I mentioned kids seem to get it less and have less intense symptoms of it. -Paul
[2021-08-31 20:35:10] - paul: "the intensity of the experience of some extremely rare event doesn't justify extreme measures to prevent said event" i agree. ~a
[2021-08-31 20:34:47] - a: Yeah, sure, you can think about it. But the intensity of the experience of some extremely rare event doesn't justify extreme measures to prevent said event. -Paul
[2021-08-31 20:34:31] - "less like to spread covid" less likely than adults? is that difference . . . enough? it might be . . . but the cdc seems to think it is not? you also left off the long-term effects of covid. ~a
[2021-08-31 20:33:03] - a: Okay, sure. But even when we add all those things up I think we (thankfully!) find good news. Kids aren't very likely at all to be hospitalized. They are less likely to get long COVID and it seems to be shorter. They're less likely to spread COVID. -Paul
[2021-08-31 20:32:15] - paul: "it's the wrong way to think about it" i disagree. i sometimes consider drowning when i decide to swim. (not super often, but it happens) i sometimes consider intubation when i decide when to wear a mask. in most cases i decide to swim anyways. and in most cases (measured by percentage of day?), i choose not to wear a mask. ~a
[2021-08-31 20:27:25] - paul: "then what is the point?" making a full risk assessment needs to look at everything. it needs to look at the damage covid does to the kids (the basically 0 chance of death, the very small risk of hospitalization, the relatively big risk of long-term affects), but also the much larger damage that covid does to society, when balancing that against the many many downsides of masks. ~a
[2021-08-31 20:23:56] - a: "saying that the children can't or don't die from covid19 seems to be missing the point" I missed this the first time, but if that's missing the point.... then what is the point? -Paul
[2021-08-31 20:23:10] - a: "i just tried to imagine the comfort of intubation?" I get the reason for the comeback, but I also think it's the wrong way to think about it. Otherwise I could say we should never let kids go to swimming pools because even though not swimming sucks, it sucks less than how it feels to drown. -Paul
[2021-08-31 17:04:20] - paul: regarding comfort, i'm totally understanding of that. i also usually wear masks 30 minutes at a time, actually usually far shorter, really usually 30 seconds at a time. the comfort of wearing a mask hours at a time did suck the few times i've had to do it. i just tried to imagine the comfort of intubation?
i've never had to do it regularly, so i'll admit that i can't know if its something you get used to or not. ~a[2021-08-31 17:03:19] - paul: "Having everybody wearing masks in school isn't an activity completely devoid of downsides" of course it isn't, that's exactly what "balancing risks" means. ~a
[2021-08-31 15:56:57] - a: And by the second flight, I was really uncomfortable wearing my mask and it actually felt like I was having some trouble breathing. I have some sympathy for asking kids to do that for like 6 hours at a time. -Paul
[2021-08-31 15:55:48] - a: And I don't want to make a huge deal of this, but frankly wearing a mask for hours on end IS uncomfortable. I used to dismiss that idea out of hand because I didn't a have problem wearing my mask for 30 minutes at a time when outdoors. However, I recently spent a day flying (two flights, each a few hours)... -Paul
[2021-08-31 15:54:30] - a: "children should probably wear masks indoors until they can get the vaccination?" I don't have a super strong opinion on this, but I think I lean the other side. Having everybody wearing masks in school isn't an activity completely devoid of downsides. I think it has a sizeable impact on learning, and it does introduce a non-zero chance of other illnesses (dirty masks). -Paul
[2021-08-30 18:59:59] - paul: the question is one of balancing risks: ok, children should probably wear masks indoors until they can get the vaccination? that seems to be balancing the risks, in my (and the cdc's) opinion. saying that the children can't or don't die from covid19 seems to be missing the point. ~a
[2021-08-30 18:57:00] - a: Sure. Children aren't safe from COVID. They're also not safe from cars or swimming pools or the flu or lightning strikes. The question is one of balancing risks. -Paul
[2021-08-30 18:56:25] - paul: potentially yes. still, i'm anti-drone because when you separate yourself from the violence, it becomes too easy to wave away the downsides of that violence. when you're up to your neck in violence, you at least are forced to live it. its why i sometimes wonder if a mandatory enlistment, or something like it, wouldn't be considered a good thing? has someone studied this? ~a
[2021-08-30 18:54:07] - a: And obviously drone strikes could've replaced other, more deadly, stuff. -Paul
[2021-08-30 18:53:03] - paul: i'll turn your statement around and say that children are not safe from covid. children are unlikely to die, but the effects from covid19 are potentially life-long AAAAND children can infect adults. also, the vaccinated are very much not safe: breakthrough cases are going to be a major issue until the unvaccinated get off their butts. ~a
[2021-08-30 18:51:56] - paul: correct. you could argue that most of those strikes were due to tensions brought on by bullshit that vp cheney started, but definitely obama wins. ~a
[2021-08-30 18:49:14] - paul: yeah, sorry, the article was posted in january 2020. so obviously its missing data past 2019. regardless, airstrikes are way-down. ~a
[2021-08-30 18:49:09] - a: It actually looks like GWB didn't do many drone strikes at all, according to those charts, and Obama did a ton? -Paul
[2021-08-30 18:48:02] - a: What a chart crime. I can't get more than the first and last year labels for the x-axis? How am I supposed to tell when those spikes occurred? -Paul
[2021-08-30 18:46:46] - a: COVID is still big and important and terrible and killing lots of people... but (thankfully!) children and the vaccinated are much safer from it and it feels like a ton of people don't seem to realize that. -Paul
[2021-08-30 18:46:15] - paul: "mandatory mask mandates in schools 'for the children'". this is and always was to decrease cases in children, not deaths in children. "airstrikes in afghanistan since gwb left office" drone strikes and casualties are down. we discussed them here during obama's time a shit-ton. ~a
[2021-08-30 18:45:07] - a: Sorry, this wasn't about trying to bludgeon you into admitting you were wrong. I just saw the tweet, was shocked by the apparent absurdity of it, then thought about it and realized it had a good chance of being true (or at least a lot closer to being right than many people think). Thought it could blow the minds of some people in terms of risk assessment. -Paul
[2021-08-30 18:39:29] - if it matters, i think there were other things i was wrong about. wikipedia, at least, thinks that adolescents are not children. til. ~a
[2021-08-30 18:38:56] - a: Additionally, I think it's useful for putting things into context. Everybody here is obsessing over and arguing over things like mandatory mask mandates in schools "for the children" when said children are very rarely dying from COVID, but I very rarely see anybody discussing the horrors of our airstrikes in Afghanistan since GWB left office. -Paul
[2021-08-30 18:38:02] - i think i already mentioned that i was wrong. but i guess, it bears repeating. ~a
[2021-08-30 18:37:18] - i was wrong. ~a
[2021-08-30 18:37:13] - yes. ~a
[2021-08-30 18:36:53] - a: "why you even want to associate yourself with such a ridiculously polarizing and utterly useless statement" Eh, retweets are not endorsements. Definitely polarizing, but I disagree it was useless. Your gut reaction was it was "many, many, orders of magnitude off". Do we agree now that that is wrong? I mean, isn't it at most like one order of magnitude off even if you assume the worst on the things we disagree on? -Paul
[2021-08-30 18:34:49] - a: "if you want to move the goalposts for no reason" It's not for no reason, it's because you insisted on using a definition of "children" that differed from mine. -Paul
[2021-08-30 16:12:51] - paul: wait no i'm shitty at counting. august 30th is 8 months. ~a
[2021-08-30 16:11:54] - paul: "50% 8 months from now?". no, ytd. the ytd for ford (was, this morning) at +50%. i guess it's august 30th, so ytd is really 9 months, not 8, sorry. ~a
[2021-08-30 16:10:51] - paul: "Biden has probably killed more kids under 12 than COVID this week" if you want to move the goalposts for no reason. but, then i'd ask you why you even want to associate yourself with such a ridiculously polarizing and utterly useless statement? also i mean, man, we know covid hardly ever kills kids under 12, so why would you word it that way? ~a
[2021-08-30 15:44:00] - a: (also, I suppose "this week" is only 2 days in so we should really be looking at only two days worth of data). I'll just rephrase since I don't have any particular allegiance to the original tweet: Biden has probably killed more kids under 12 than COVID this week. -Paul
[2021-08-30 15:41:13] - a: "so that makes ZERO sense" Sure, that's fair. But then shouldn't we compare to under 12 numbers because all the kids killed were under 12? -Paul
[2021-08-30 15:36:51] - a: "ford, +50% is serious money in 8 months" Are you saying you think there's a decent chance Ford is up 50% 8 months from now? Because I would take the under on that bet. -Paul
[2021-08-30 15:36:21] - paul: 13-17 are children, sorry. ~a
[2021-08-30 15:35:58] - paul: 4. 13-18 are children. ~a
[2021-08-30 15:29:46] - paul: 1. "if we're counting US versus worldwide" what? the children killed in afghanistan weren't US children, so that makes ZERO sense. 2. i said the wrong thing. 75% is totally wrong. it is closer to 99%. 3. 400/77 doesn't include the children outside of the united states. ~a
[2021-08-30 15:29:14] - a: I'm struggling to find links to back this up, but I am almost positive that the death rate to COVID for children 12 and under is much lower than "children" (and honestly I don't know if that's the right word to use to describe them) 13-18. -Paul
[2021-08-30 15:25:25] - a: https://twitter.com/mtracey/status/1432321123660746752/photo/2 Looks like it was 6 individuals under the age of 12. -Paul
[2021-08-30 15:20:52] - a: If we start counting COVID from March 2020 onward, then we're looking at around 77 weeks. 400 / 77 is ~5, which I believe is around the number of kids killed in that strike. -Paul
[2021-08-30 15:19:42] - a: "how is it possibly true?" So, obviously a lot depends on how you define "children" and if we're counting US versus worldwide. I've seen 400 as the number of US children that have died of COVID (https://www.insider.com/children-are-not-supposed-die-children-us-died-covid-19-2021-7). -Paul
[2021-08-30 15:08:09] - paul: looking at recent data, it seems like only about 75% of covid deaths are from adults? so we're many, many, orders of magnitude off unless i'm misunderstanding you. ~a
[2021-08-30 15:04:40] - paul: for reference, covid is killing ~70,000 people worldwide, per week. i'm sorry, are we assuming that 99.99% of them are adults for some reason? or am i misunderstanding the joke? ~a
[2021-08-30 14:55:26] - paul: how is it possibly true? even if you attribute 100% drone strikes to biden's actions, which you SHOULD NOT, i'm not sure how that comes even close to being true. ~a
[2021-08-30 14:53:39] - paul: "CAN turn themselves around" they don't even really need to turn themselves around though, right? for example, ford, +50% is serious money in 8 months. and they haven't (imo) turned themselves around. ~a
[2021-08-30 14:53:35] - https://twitter.com/libsoftiktok/status/1432348623812112386 Oof. Harsh, but probably true? -Paul
[2021-08-30 14:53:11] - a: When it comes to investing. I don't expect to be right all the time or even most of the time. I figure as long as I am right about half the time and invest in a way where the upside is greater than the downside (ie, my gains can be 2,000% versus a loss of 100%) it should work out. -Paul
[2021-08-30 14:51:49] - a: Don't disagree at all. I saw it happen with Best Buy. Shitty companies certainly CAN turn themselves around. I just think it's the exception instead of the rule and I think it's not likely to happen here with Ford (a turnaround, that is). -Paul
[2021-08-30 14:30:14] - paul: a shitty company that is positioned badly will often be valued very cheaply. but, with a new board of directors and a hard-pivot (say, into electric vehicles), their valuation can skyrocket. ~a
[2021-08-30 14:28:07] - paul: it does seem weird that you keep bringing this example up, because its exactly the kind of situation where i think you are wrong about shitty companies. shitty companies are sometimes correctly valued. so their return can be surprising. for instance: ford's ytd return is much greater than tsla's ytd return. (+50% vs +1%!) shitty companies will often continue being shitty, but that doesn't mean that they will under-perform. ~a
[2021-08-30 14:02:12] - a: https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1431522886456651778 I saw your comment and thought of this. I don't know enough about Rivian to say, but we did have a discussion before where I think I stated that I didn't think Ford was going to outperform the market over the next 5-10 years and that I thought that seemed obvious. -Paul
[2021-08-27 16:14:59] - (tesla's ipo was much more modest: something like 1/10th of ford instead f much bigger than ford. on the other hand, maybe rivian is further along than tsla was at the time of tsla ipo, and/or definitely electric vehicles are a lot further along in general) ~a
[2021-08-27 16:03:52] - the rivian ipo seems interesting to me because they're seeking a valuation much bigger than that of ford. and i've barely even heard of rivian. if rivian is indeed "bigger" than ford, will that have a potential to affect my tsla stock? ~a
[2021-08-27 15:13:39] - paul: for reddit, every fucking sub has its own moderation rules. i can't imagine a website without moderation rules. it'd be a shit-show. ~a
[2021-08-27 15:12:32] - paul: even more encompassing than TOS, though, is a set of moderation rules (like an editorial board for a newspaper). and those rules can and should change. ~a
[2021-08-27 15:11:23] - paul: i want twitter and facebook to decide for themselves on what to publish, yes. that means they should take down posts that they consider against their TOS. and weigh in on posts that violate their TOS. ~a
[2021-08-27 15:10:18] - especially if i knew my company was doing something that the other company would fucking hate. ~a
[2021-08-27 15:09:34] - "what about people who make their living that way?" in what relationship? as an employee of a facebook? or an employee of a different company? or a business owner? or just, like a regular human? if i started a company up from the ground that depended on another company behaving a certain way, i'd treat that as my biggest "risk". ~a
[2021-08-27 15:09:21] - a: You want Twitter and Facebook making the call to start banning "misinformation"? That means they should take down posts saying GMOs are dangerous or nuclear power is dangerous. How about having them weigh in on diet posts as well? -Paul
[2021-08-27 15:07:31] - a: "jeese, as long as you replace "your life" with "publishing your message"" It depends, right? It probably wouldn't hurt me much if Facebook and Twitter banned me, but what about people who make their living that way? -Paul
[2021-08-27 15:01:19] - paul: you're also able to start your own website. though we've found that not all cloud providers will take you. ~a
[2021-08-27 14:59:16] - paul: all of these things are legal (and immoral) for spreading misinformation. assuming the misinformation isn't slander or fraud? ~a
[2021-08-27 14:57:12] - paul: if your message is really worth publishing, there are millions of newspapers, newsletters, and mailing-lists that would love to carry your story. i mean, remember what happened before there was google, facebook, and twitter? you could stand on a street-corner, hand out fliers, go door to door, hire people to spread your message, find a rag or list. some of these are pandemic-friendly, but allah willing this pandemic will end. ~a
[2021-08-27 14:52:16] - jeese, as long as you replace "your life" with "publishing your message" ~a
[2021-08-27 14:51:29] - a: "i don't even think this is true today, let alone in the future or past." That's fair, and I agree that saying stranglehold was probably too strong. But if a handful of tech giants decide you (or your viewpoints) are unacceptable, can we agree it can make your life VERY difficult? -Paul
[2021-08-27 14:50:11] - hey, what's wrong with death to israel? ~a
[2021-08-27 14:49:49] - a: You start making judgements on what isn't allowed, then you're implying some sort of acceptance / approval of what you DO allow. -Paul
[2021-08-27 14:49:12] - paul: "strong stranglehold on online discourse" i don't even think this is true today, let alone in the future or past. or, in any countries other than our own. they're all competing against each-other, so if one steps out of line they have to worry about losing market share by leaps and bounds. what's more, there are dozens of other companies in the mix, even in the united states alone. ~a
[2021-08-27 14:49:05] - a: Is some random guy saying "masks don't work" really more dangerous than, say, a world leader who says stuff like "death to Israel"? -Paul
[2021-08-27 14:47:57] - a: "should google and twitter and facebook republish everything?" I think, from a business perspective, google and facebook should really have stuck to the "at&t / pipes" argument, because as soon as they took responsibility for content posted on their sites they now have to justify EVERYTHING. Like, why is the Taliban allowed? -Paul
[2021-08-27 14:46:43] - a: "also shit tons of studies have shown that cloth masks do work" My point wasn't the opposite, my point is that there's plenty of nuance between "masks are universally great and should be used all the time" and "masks are worthless and nobody should wear them" and banning any discussion which can be interpreted as saying "masks don't work" can screw up that nuance. -Paul
[2021-08-27 14:46:26] - paul: or, i guess . . . should google and twitter and facebook republish everything? ~a
[2021-08-27 14:45:43] - paul: is there no line? should google and twitter and facebook be required to republish everything? ~a
[2021-08-27 14:44:29] - a: Far more of an effect than a single random baker somewhere not wanting to make a wedding cake for a gay wedding. -Paul
[2021-08-27 14:44:09] - a: "have some perspective, paul" I think I have some good perspective on this. Facebook, Twitter, and Google have a pretty strong stranglehold on online discourse, and that's not counting the other sites performing similar censorship. If those companies say something isn't allowed to be said, it can have a huge affect on what people talk about. -Paul
[2021-08-27 14:39:19] - paul: a lot of this comes down to: is twitter supposed to be the washington post (a publisher, that decides what to publish)? or is twitter supposed to be at&t (a utility company that allows everything through the pipes). you're going to have a hard-sell on the second one. ~a
[2021-08-27 14:34:58] - paul: your two examples are dumb. galileo was breaking laws and the law came down on him, because the laws were dumb. also shit tons of studies have shown that cloth masks do work. ~a
[2021-08-27 14:33:52] - have some perspective, paul. the law is not preventing you from getting your cloth message out. just because the washington post decides not to publish your opinion piece on cloth masks, doesn't mean that galileo won't be able to get his story out. he's just going to have to go to a different publisher. and if all publishers refuse to publish galileo's work, maybe its because his peers have poorly reviewed his research. ~a
[2021-08-27 14:31:20] - a: "should we all care?" Yes. I believe so. We learn and grow by challenging conventional wisdom and not being beholden to what the authorities say. Galileo? If we had this policy in place earlier how much slower would it have been to learn about COVID and what works and doesn't work in terms of preventing the spread? -Paul
[2021-08-27 14:24:37] - paul: 3. should we all care? maybe you blurting out "cloth masks just don't work!" doesn't belong on social media. ~a
[2021-08-27 14:24:08] - a: 1. No, but that's what worries me (and I know similar things have happened to others). 2. Very good point, but for better or worse, things like twitter seem to have a BIG effect on the real world in terms of policy, so I think it's important for that reason alone. -Paul
[2021-08-27 14:18:40] - paul: "Bam. Banned" 1. are you sure? (2. should you care? getting banned from social media might improve your life.) ~a
[2021-08-27 14:15:24] - a: And it's not like there's some panel of experienced doctors moderating everything. It's probably a bunch of people who don't know any more about these things than we do reading thousands of messages (sometimes without context) and making decisions off some list of topics they're supposed to not allow. -Paul
[2021-08-27 14:13:05] - a: But you can see how this could be problematic, right? Hypothetical: We're two smart, educated people taking opposite sides on mandatory masks (unspecified types) in school. I'm saying the efficacy of cloth masks (which most kids would use) is so low that it's not worth it. In the heat of the moment, I might blurt out: "cloth masks just don't work!". Bam. Banned. -Paul
[2021-08-27 13:33:18] - paul: "vaccinated people CAN still get breakthrough cases and it's still an open question how effective they might be against variants" the first thing was never a question (efficacy < 100%), and the second thing is well known. the efficacy of the mrna vaccines against delta is still very high: 90%. compared to the 50% requirement that the fda put on the emergency approval. (whether those would be allowed on facebook, i dunno man). ~a
[2021-08-27 13:31:15] - paul: regarding n95 and cloth . . . yes, i'm sure facebook would let you have that conversation. it would be contentious but allowed (is my guess). but for what its worth, if you said "masks don't work", it's less likely facebook would (should?) let you spread that false message. ~a
[2021-08-27 13:22:55] - a: And for vaccines, they work in terms of drastically reducing the chance of hospitalization, death, and spreading COVID, but they don't "work" in terms of vaccinated people CAN still get breakthrough cases and it's still an open question how effective they might be against variants. We need to be able to have open discussions about that as well. -Paul
[2021-08-27 13:21:54] - a: "the vaccines "work" and the masks "work"" Sure, but I would submit even there it's not black and white. What about how how N95 masks are a lot more effective than cloth masks and how cloth masks DO have some potential downsides in terms of dirty masks causing other illnesses? Can we have that conversation? -Paul
[2021-08-26 17:07:16] - misinformation about vaccines and masks have become so politicized and polarized, that even though pandemics usually hit dense mostly liberal cities, the conservatives are the ones dying. labeling misinformation may have major speed-bumps, but its also a path that is saving lives. (and this has been the "case" for more than a year) ~a
[2021-08-26 17:02:38] - mig/paul: going back a day, i'd like to talk about this "I think the last 18 months have shown just how hard it is to exactly define what counts as misinformation". although i agree there are a shit-ton of grey areas. where facebook or twitter tries to ban stuff that the CDC said that ends up being false. but there are also non-grey areas: the vaccines "work" and the masks "work". ~a
[2021-08-26 15:00:27] - a: Got it. Just wanted to make sure I wasn't missing something.
-Paul[2021-08-26 14:22:05] - just that it was posted to reddit i guess. and, its not necessarily true? still it doesn't make sense to me anymore
~a[2021-08-26 14:21:33] - paul: aw, i dunno what i was thinking when i posted that, honestly. i feel like i was trying to make a joke, but this morning, i don't get it. ~a
[2021-08-26 14:20:58] - a: How is that disinformation? -paul
[2021-08-26 14:19:59] - a: Yeah, I mean, obviously if there was some pretty specialized community of, say, trans people who wanted to ban any and all discussion about J.K. Rowling, then I can see how that would make sense for that group. I don't think it would be ideal, but I wouldn't really make a big fuss about it. -Paul
[2021-08-25 21:14:31] - paul: disinformation? . . . reddit ~a
[2021-08-25 20:15:02] - paul: i'd prefer the public trust in big tech companies to be small. i believe spreading false information about masking/vaccines does have a downside. and stopping that spread does have an upside even if you don't do it exactly right every time. ~a
[2021-08-25 20:08:44] - paul: if they ban speech i like, and allow speech i don't, assuming all the speech is "legal", then i'll be free to use any website i please. in this specific case, stopping the publication and republication of disinformation about the virus's spread, is fine by me: i'm for it. ~a
[2021-08-25 20:06:17] - paul: i think if reddit chooses to respect the communities wishes to allow certain speech, so be it. allow only some speech on a random website among millions, for better or worse. its still insanely voluntary. ~a
[2021-08-25 19:58:44] - paul: "I would agree with it" vs "it's a bad idea". ok, i guess this makes you on the fence? either its a good idea, a bad idea, or you're not sure which? ~a
[2021-08-25 19:27:10] - sorry, the coverup was found more recently so the reporting has had less time to get to your ears. ~a
[2021-08-25 19:12:41] - a: Newer how? It likely happened before Florida's (assuming there is one) because NYC got hit first. -Paul
[2021-08-25 19:12:13] - a: "still no?" I mean, they are all private companies so they can do what they want. And maybe in some edge cases where the majority of users want it done it makes a lot of sense and I would agree with it (although I wonder if the majority on Reddit want this). For something like Reddit, though, I still think it's a bad idea. -Paul
[2021-08-25 19:11:18] - "versus this one" this is a newer coverup. ~a
[2021-08-25 19:10:26] - https://www.cnbc.com/2021/08/25/gov-hochul-acknowledges-more-new-york-covid-deaths-than-andrew-cuomo-counted.html 43k to 55k is a pretty big jump (~28% more). And yet I feel like I've heard more about Florida's supposed cover-up (of which I still haven't seen any evidence) versus this one. -Paul
[2021-08-25 19:08:23] - paul: hmmm yeah ok, good point. mmmm, well ok, what about this case then? where reddit's own users think it should be moderated differently? still no? ~a
[2021-08-25 19:06:42] - a: Hasn't that been what facebook and twitter and other companies have been doing? Questioning of the official CDC line on vaccines or masking or COVID or anything like that is getting flagged and often taken down. -Paul
[2021-08-25 19:00:03] - paul: well that might be because nobody has tried to ban misinformation? i honestly don't know that it would work or not work, but i agree it could be a problem regardless. ~a
[2021-08-25 18:58:50] - paul: i know where you stand sort-of, sure. "it's shown how ineffective trying to purge it is" how has this been done? i don't think i've seen many organizations "try" very hard to ban misinformation about the pandemic. ~a
[2021-08-25 18:58:33] - a: For example, do we really think all the efforts to purge vaccine and/or mask "misinformation" has made people more likely to take the vaccine or mask up? I would argue the larger effect is to have the public trust the media / big tech companies even less than before. -Paul
[2021-08-25 18:57:31] - a: I think you know where I stand: I have a pretty strict limit on wanting to ban "dangerous" information. In terms of misinformation, I think the last 18 months have shown just how hard it is to exactly define what counts as misinformation. And I also think it's shown how ineffective trying to purge it is. -Paul
[2021-08-25 18:25:56] - paul: aaaaah, ok. he's the one "in the wrong". i'm with you now. seriously though, should reddit cull info that's "dangerous"? i'm kinda on the fence here, really. i feel like v-for-vendetta guy was pretty for spreading of "dangerous" information. maybe not all "dangerous" information should be treated the same? ~a
[2021-08-25 18:24:19] - a: I see "Posted byu/N8theGr8 2 hours ago" at the top of the link you posted. I was snarkily trying to say the blame lies with that person for petitioning reddit to censor out "misinformation". -Paul
[2021-08-25 18:19:33] - paul: i apparently use a different section of reddit than you. i have no idea who or what n8thgr8 is and i'm on reddit a lot. ~a
[2021-08-25 18:19:01] - i would have expected them to just avoid it entirely and just say "variants". ~a
[2021-08-25 18:18:50] - a: Clearly N8theGr8. Did I do this right? I don't use Reddit that often. -Paul
[2021-08-25 18:17:36] -
~a[2021-08-25 18:17:08] - https://www.cnbc.com/2021/08/25/delta-air-lines-unvaccinated-employees-will-face-200-fees-if-they-dont-get-covid-vaccine.html Love it that Delta airlines uses the less commonly know "B.1.617.2 variant" name for the new COVID variant that is all the rage right now. -Paul
[2021-08-25 18:09:11] - a protest against the dissemination of disinformation by reddit, on reddit. i'm sure we'll all totally agree on who's in the wrong here. ~a
[2021-08-25 17:15:43] - i'm kinda joking in case that wasn't obvious. but, on that note, nudity in religion (nsfw-ish). ~a
[2021-08-25 17:14:40] - religious people don't like nudity?
~a[2021-08-25 17:13:24] - a: Hah, it does kind of take away from his lawsuit that later in life he posed for the same photo and wanted to do it nude. When I first read the headline I wondered if he had a religious conversion later in life. -Paul
[2021-08-25 17:02:20] - he wanted to pose nude, and his parents wanted $200. everybody is happy here. lawsuit over. ~a
[2021-08-25 17:01:01] - a: That was my second favorite part ("he wanted to pose nude"). -Paul
[2021-08-25 16:47:50] - jeeeeese, yeah his case is totally fucked. i get that your parents being * paid * for child pornography is still totes illegal, but this clearly isn't that. ~a
[2021-08-25 16:34:44] - a: they were apparently paid $200. - mig
[2021-08-25 16:23:26] - this is my favorite part: "elden said he wanted to pose nude, but the photographer 'thought it would be weird.'" ha. ~a
prev <-> next