base698

Screenshot of dictionary.com from 2019. Note the any preparation used as a preventive inoculation to confer immunity against a specific disease. It did not confer immunity and when it became obvious it didn't they doubled down and added the pressure to take it despite cases (and even deaths) skyrocketing through the roll out and the pulling of the non mRNA j&j vaccine. People's experience and idea of what a vaccine was not that, hence the doubling down causes massive distrust in anything with the same name. It was great being gaslit, I think even here, that they never said it was supposed to stop you from getting it. Despite everyone in the media, Joe Biden, and the CEO of moderna claiming "you wouldn't get it". Thanks for polio.

That's not fair. I created, copied, a new model, death years (which is actually how mortality is modeled in #thescience). They count, just less proportionally. Think of it as the 3/5ths rule for mortality.

Have you seen what calling a treatment that isn't a vaccine does to general trust in vaccines? If they called it lifesaver, fuck yeah 5000 we would not have had this problem.

Assuming you take the with/of distinction off the table and I'll call it a cool million covid deaths, of which 90% are above 65 years old. 100,000 opioid * 4 years = 400,000 deaths. Let's say the median age of death is 77 (to make it easy) and say above 77 the person had 5 years to live and under 77 15. 500k * 5 years = 2500k death years + 500k * 15 = 10000k death years for COVID For overdoses: 35ish is median age of overdose death. Keep it simple we have 200k with 42 years to live and 200k with 20 years to live 200k * 42 + 200k * 20 = 12400k death years. Not counting that group is more likely to have young children. Another Fermi example, done on the back of a phone, or screen of a phone.

When someone tells you they don't eat goat, but consume other types of meat do you call them anti-meat?

What I said above: the pipeline goes something like this: tweet/reddit post -> minor blog or podcast "some people are saying" -> blog with more reach reports on "blog x reported today that people are saying" -> legacy media outlet reports it as factual. Before these things would be fact checked, today in the race to be relevant that's impossible. Paraphrased: the only thing stopping a bad guy with a propaganda is a good guy with a propaganda. I haven't followed her lately but AOC used to be exceptional at it.

See above, there are no Safe Spaces anymore. I would say books are where I get my information. Currently I'm reading, "The Theory that Would Not Die" about Bayes' Theorem. I have read 12 books on Media, Persuasion and Propaganda since 2019 including: - Propaganda - Alchemy - Trust Me I'm Lying (Quote from above) - Win Your Case - True Believer - The Captive Mind - Amusing Ourselves to Death - Beyond Belief (WW2 book about reporting of NYT on the Holocaust) - The Righteous Mind - Influence - Pre-Suasion And I'm still terrible at it myself :)

In case you missed the last 15 years of the Internet, the pipeline goes something like this: tweet/reddit post -> minor blog or podcast "some people are saying" -> blog with more reach reports on "blog x reported today that people are saying" -> legacy media outlet reports it as factual. Before these things would be fact checked, today in the race to be relevant that's impossible. At each stage a different group froths at the mouth. "Conservatives are idiots, look at what they believe". "Liberal snow flakes don't know George Washington was the first president" Everyone Nom nom noms it up. We've been increasingly living in the matrix. Even worse the beginning of the pipeline can be and is frequently fraudulent. This story from 15 years ago, and I bet of you go back you guys were frothing at the mouth about misogyny:

99% sure I never said that. If you find something that implies that I will state now I do not believe homeless problems are related to illegal immigrants. They certainly aren't vaccines. I agree with this statement: > this medicine is more like a "therapeutic with a limited window of efficacy and terrible side effect profile that must be dosed in advance of illness." For people in a high-risk category, it can be useful, lifesaving. But it's a substance you stick in my arm that allows me to get the targeted disease almost immediately, and doesn't stop me getting it from or giving it to my kids. If that's a "vaccine," I'm a Chinese jet pilot. In 2021 the dictionary definition changed to more broad. I agree with the pre 2021 definition of what a vaccine is and think those work. As for Covid being the sniffles, it was for me. I've had it twice, as has my wife. The second time she got it she had zero symptoms. The other time it lasted 2 days. Same for me, second time though I had symptoms for three days. I acknowledge for the age group here that it was scary, not the sniffles, and worse than the flu. That is not true across all ages. If you were advocating for school closures two years after it started because you are afraid, even though a weekend of skydiving had more risk, you are a monster who sacrificed the youth for your own fears.

That also has never been true, is not true and will never be true: > As Walter Lippmann wrote, the news constitutes a sort of pseudo-environment, but our responses to that environment are not pseudo but actual behavior. In 1922, Lippmann warned us “about the worldwide spectacle of men”—government officials, bankers, executives, artists, ordinary people, and even other reporters—“acting upon their environment moved by stimuli from their pseudo-environment.”

You just named a bunch of liberal news media perceptions of boomer conservatives. I don't know anyone personally who believes any of those.

I was curious how boomer libs (older Gen X and boomer) took the loss. I'm a Xennial and most of my discussions are with people in the age range of 35-50. I've found the discussion here enlightening and very different than with younger Never Trumpers. Broadly younger people seem to understand in a democracy people have different view points. You can campaign and hope your pet issue takes the forefront but that won't always be the case. "My mom died of an overdose, and JD Vance has direct experience with this issue". YOU SHOULD HAVE THOUGHT OF IMMIGRANTS AND ABORTION is why you lose and will continue to lose. The blanks spaces are part of the encoding in a bar code, without them the bar code is meaningless. Like a true liberal you have no idea how reality works.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_problem A Fermi problem (or Fermi quiz, Fermi question, Fermi estimate), also known as an order-of-magnitude problem (or order-of-magnitude estimate, order estimation), is an estimation problem in physics or engineering education, designed to teach dimensional analysis or approximation of extreme scientific calculations. Fermi problems are usually back-of-the-envelope calculations. The estimation technique is named after physicist Enrico Fermi as he was known for his ability to make good approximate calculations with little or no actual data. Fermi problems typically involve making justified guesses about quantities and their variance or lower and upper bounds. In some cases, order-of-magnitude estimates can also be derived using dimensional analysis.

What percentage of online harassment leads to actual damage compared to rape? I'd wager 100% of rapes cause irreparable harm to the victim. What percentage of mean Internet comments do irreparable harm? Do you think stopping online harassment would lead to a decline in real harassment? Back to my question, what percentage of funds deserve to target online harassment? 3% of the population has antisocial personality disorder. If Trump went away today and all his supporters what would that do to online harassment? Do those 3% of the population continue to harass online or is it online utopia where all content is cat videos?

Are there any other possibilities you can think of?

It doesn't appear to be since it's rarely prosecuted and rarely results in real-world cross over. If you had $1,000,000 to spend to investigate crimes of rape, real world harassment, domestic violence, and online harassment, how much would you allocate to prosecuting online harassment?

It's click bait. This time MAGA is the villain, previously online trolls, mens rights activists, gamers. Real world harassment is barely prosecuted or taken seriously. And when it is it's in select cases (rich victim, famous victim). Online harassment is taken less seriously. It has the advantage it is rampant, crosses demographics and existed prior to MAGA or Trump so any narrative can be written to write a story about.

Repeat of a previous storyline a decade old https://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2014/05/cyberbll.html > So in order to explain their otherwise irrational feeling of impotence, they pull from any of the media-approved categories of blame, depending on your news network: sexism, racism, feminism. The central importance of the media in soliciting their anger is totally lost on the older "activists" who still believe that the -ism is the primary force. They're enraged that a white Princeton student would dare to write that white privilege doesn't exist; they never wonder why they read it.

It's the part we printed not spent, so maybe? All of it was given to the billionaires.

The proof is they spent $14.7 billion dollars and it got a lot worse. You can speculate on whatever reason you think it is. I don't think it's possible to be total mismanagement, total fraud, or total problem being hard.

Shutdown the Cathedral/Iron Polygon. He's said it directly. Original point, I think he's more capable of whatever oligarchs were supporting Harris.

And now he's the 3rd most powerful person in the world. Must be an off chance.

I didn't completely flush it out. A quick search made it look like up to 60% of gov spend went to donor class. I'll back peddle back to my original point that money doesn't seem to fix homelessness. My complete fucking guess is that it's because it's "stolen" or mismanagement. My reason for using Dem donor is that California is dem leaning and that article mentioned the money spent there, so it stands to reason some percentage higher than average would go to those donors.

How many electric cars were on the road in 2008? How much of that is due directly to subsidies? Let's say it's half. That's still a paradigm shift, hell even Ford has a total EV mandate and every other manufacturer is playing in the market seriously now. Same for rockets. How many launches now vs 2010? What's the probability we go to moon this decade vs in 2010? When someone has success in multiple domains and it looked impossible when they started I'm inclined to give them a shot.

Off chance? You think he just gave his support, bought twitter for 44 billion and millions of dollars direct to R causes for an off chance? Yes, agree on the bad dad thing.