It's pretty incredible they claim people are "unvaccinated" for 2 weeks after getting vaccinated. Why not consider them "recently vaccinated"?? And where is the proven science backing up the claim it takes exactly 14 days before the vaccination kicks in? i.e. Is it 0% effective on day 13?
Considering the CDC and the media are freely blasting out headlines such as: "A Pandemic of the Un-vaccinated", I'd say it's safe to consider them to be blatantly lying by omission.
@dang I'd urge you not to ban/shadow-ban my account considering I openly represent a political minority here at HN during a very turbulent time politically in the world where people are often afraid to speak up. Banning people like me would just increase the echo-chamber that already exists at HN. If my opinions were as strong in the other political direction, I'd probably be getting praised left and right.
While I agree some of my comments as of late would be considered "breaking guidelines", most of my comments are conversation provoking, and often include sources.
And FYI in this particular situation, it's pretty frustrating to see people not only make numerical claims without providing sources, but then confidently respond to being called out with an anecdotal "well my 1 doctor friend told me...." response. Only for them to be provided further false-confidence by you swooping in with the ban-hammer based on some arbitrary "site guideline".
The WOKE crowd is literally making everything worse in America. They act like they care about certain subcultures, but gentrify those subcultures out of their own lives and indirectly take advantage of them. They probably represent less than 5% of Americans, but no one wants to deal with the downside of telling them to shut the hell up and that they're fake people.
"Bobo's in Paradise" and "Revolt of the Elites and the Betrayal of Democracy are good books to explain what's really going on.
Yes. If the currently available options intended to fix a particular problem don't actually fix the problem while at the same time make the offending business more powerful while making the little guy less powerful...then yes, doing nothing is clearly a better option in the short term.
If you use your brain to think through the initial 3-4 domino effects of a carbon tax, you'll quickly realize that the end result is the little guy paying the actual tax via inflation while the big guy actually enjoys larger profit totals (maintaining profit margin % on newly inflated prices = more profit).
The tricky part is actually using your brain to think it through.
Your POS mindset is everything that's wrong with America right now.
Whether you understand it or not, it's smug, small-minded thinking. You disregard essential human rights while acting like you care about in-vogue topics being falsely-flagged as human rights issues. You think you're so smart but your ancestors are turning in their fucking graves.
Naturally, I'm assuming you also hate the thought of procreation. So the only positive is knowing that your DNA will die out of the human gene-pool in under a generation.
Your response is the definition of small-minded thinking. On top of that, they are rooted in selfish false-concerns for others.
While it is true that the vaccinated are at essentially no risk of serious illness from SARS-CoV2...it's ALSO true that the UN-vaccinated are at essentially no risk of serious illness from SARS-CoV2. THAT'S THE FUCKING TRUTH!!! It's been that way from day 1....but the dumbasses who believe the skewed number fake-news stats continue to boast their BS sob story to justify an experimental vaccine where the pharmaceutical companies have a LIABILITY WAIVER...so they can collect cash but not ever have risk to the downside.
Are you considering the modifier here to be the word "male"?
If so, your statement is simply absurd. That's like saying the term "female cheaters" equally insinuates men and women as the cheating-gender being discussed.
#2 You missed the point. Twitter is trying to tweak their algorithm not to fix the actual problem, but to reduce the Twitter-perceived downside of not aligning with in-vogue leftist politics (i.e. in this instance: "despise anything to do with white-males but scream racism/sexism as it suits them").
The parent comment is essentially saying this whole bounty exists because Twitter is afraid of the social-politics associated with being considered a "male-gaze" facilitator (while mentioning they're already aware that the known technical cause has nothing to do with that, but it's essentially too hard to explain to the general public).
So mentioning you get eyefucked in the bread aisle by more men than lesbians not only misses the point, it shows how quick you are to position yourself as a victim (whether you intended to or not) as it suits you...only to admit you enjoy the eyefucks. Making ppl like you happy is the actual goal of this.
Seem insanely low considering it's really just a for-profit business asking the general public to figure out a very difficult problem they aren't able to figure out on their own.
Why not? And where is that data?
Unless there's something I'm not understanding, I'd consider this lying by omission.