How exactly would you confirm - beyond any doubt - that contagion happened outside? Most people live most of their lives inside a building of one sort or another, so it'd be almost impossible to 'document' a case of outside transmission.
Then you shouldn't use qualifiers such as 'poor' to describe their risk assessment. Don't give the idiots pushing anti-masking rhetoric in this forum more wind than they deserve by propagating their memes.
Why 'poor'? Have you factored in everything going on that person's life? Do you know if they have a friend or relative who might be at higher risk? What if they have a young kid and they don't want to risk it? What if they just consider wearing a mask a mild inconvenience when compared to - say - the risk of being intubated?
I honestly can't understand this whole obsession with shaming people for wearing masks. Who gives two shits if someone else is wearing a mask? How does it affect you?
Meh, the outrage crowd in Hacker News is ridiculous. Any level of effort to make a company more inclusive as criticized as the company being 'too woke'. Meanwhile, Google's market cap has exploded in recent years.
Lots of people too scared of 'cancel culture' (read: being caught and having to pay the consequences) around here.
The changes can be explained by two simple factors, without the need for some grand nefarious conspiracy:
* The CDC's default position is caution
* We know more now than we did in the past
In February, we realized vaccinated people could still get asymptomatic infections. Out of an abundance of caution, the CDC recommends vaccinated people keep wearing masks because the vast majority of the population isn't vaccinated.
As evidence accumulates in the intermediate time, we realize that vaccines also lower the percentage of people with asymptomatic Covid-19 [1]
With even more evidence, we realize vaccinated people overwhelmingly avoid hospitalization, which is the real issue we are trying to avoid [2]
With those two pieces of information, the CDC can now change their recommendation. Nothing nefarious going on, nothing 'unknowable' to anyone paying attention.
The problem is when people who are already predisposed to distrust the CDC - most likely due to their media diet - and put 0 effort in understanding the changing landscape see the CDC change the recommendation and assume it must be 'something political'. Those of us who were paying attention weren't that surprised about the announcement.
There's almost a year between the time we originally went into lockdown to 'flatten the curve' and the time a significant part of the population got vaccinated. You can't pretend that not using a mask now - once someone is vaccinated - is the same as not using a mask back then.
This is such a bullshit strawman. Most of my friends are family are very liberal. Most of them are already vaccinated. Not a single one of them wants to wear a mask unless absolutely necessary and everyone is ready for this to be over.
Arguably, the dominant OS nowadays is whatever your phone runs, plus whatever serves the websites you consume. Microsoft Office reigns unchallenged though.
> It's not a partition between the things you said, it's a partition between beliefs that would be held absent any reward vs beliefs that are only held due to a reward.
You keep implying that the only possible reason people would denounce RMS's behavior is because they 'get rewarded' for it. I'm surprised you can be so certain about it, when it's perfectly possible they are doing it because they've suffered abuse themselves or have a genuine concern that certain arguments - even when made in good faith by a supposedly autistic person - might make other people feel uncomfortable or unsafe.
Imagine being a young freshman woman at your alma mater and someone starts waxing philosophical about whether a 50 something year old man having sex with a minor is assault or not depending on whether 'they presented themselves as willing'. Would you feel safe? What if the same guy is known around your alma mater as somewhat of a creeper? What if he's defending someone who is associated with a guy who owns an island where people go to have sex with underage girls and is now accused of having had sex with one of them? How safe would you feel then?
> Steve Klabnik is allowed to go around calling himself a communist without getting removed from anything, for example.
Weird that you'd somehow equate being a self-declared Communist (a political ideology) with defending pedophiles (a literal crime).
This seems like a very arbitrary and capricious partition between those doing something for 'clout' and those doing it because they can't help themselves.
Do you think the people now being attacked in this thread because they originally called for Richard Stallman to face consequences are being 'canceled'? I see a lot of people claiming nobody should take them seriously ever again, blah blah blah. Sounds like 'canceling' to me. Is this mob any better than the supposed 'cancel culture' mob?
In other words: should we stop using the term 'cancel culture' only in one direction?
While you might not be calling for ostracizing the cancellers, plenty of people out there are calling for exactly that.
There's a number of terms being used ('SJW', 'woke', 'cancel culture', 'cultural Marxism', etc.) to denigrate and quell any kind of discourse that goes against conservative talking points. I'd suggest you go and watch any of the self-described 'conservative comedians' to understand the level of otherization and systematic invalidation of any views that don't match theirs. Then come back here and tell me their behavior isn't as much of a moral panic as the supposed 'cancel culture'.
The fact that it is majorly powerful self-described Christian conservatives politicians that are constantly pushing the 'cancel culture' narrative should be a hint, don't you think?
It’s not so much about what is in the chasm, but what lies at the edges. Dave Chappelle has a strong incentive to keep his jokes edgy but somewhat acceptable within the society he makes a living in. The anonymous edgelord posting neo-Nazi Pepes on 4chan has no such constraint.
It’s very easy - and indeed I’ve seen it with my own eyes when I was younger - for communities that accept jokes about minorities or LGBT people to very quickly devolve into open fantasizing about actual physical harm of such people. Back in the early 2000’s gaming forums were rife with that kind of supercharged self-radicalization.
Having grown up in South America, I take the ‘jokesters’ wearing t-shirts with slogans such as ‘Pinochet did nothing wrong’ and ‘make leftists afraid of helicopters again’ extremely seriously. Several of my parents’ acquaintances were ‘disappeared’ by the last dictatorship. My dad - a student at the time who wasn’t involved in any kind of political activism - shaved his beard because he was afraid he’d be mistaken for a ‘commie’ and jailed or worse. All you need is a small percentage of idiots actually believing the ‘joke’ for real life consequences to follow.
There's a whole gaping chasm between Dave Chappelle - a world-famous comedian - making what is clearly a joke on a stage and some anonymous person posting edgy white supremacist shit 'for the lulz'. In case you haven't been following the news, that's the kind of radicalization tool that resulted in a not insignificant amount of the population believing that QAnon was real and that storming the capitol and killing a policeman were justified.
So yeah, people who are there just to 'shit post right wing stuff' should definitely consider what they are doing.
I'm always curious about this line of thinking. What exactly do you think people are gaining by - say - denouncing sexism or other kinds of awful behavior? What's so wolfish about that?
> If all the time I've wasted on 4chan has taught me anything, it's that calling people shitheads, or more colorful variants, does little to change their mind.
I'm not here to convert anyone. Catharsis is also a perfectly valid reason to do something.
> The problem with pedophilia isn't that it's offensive, it's the harm caused. As you well know... If you can make a good case that soydev memes are as bad as, you know, molesting kids, then please do.
Filling people's heads with 'edgy' stuff has led us to the current situation were we have self-declared incels shooting up public places while live-streaming their violence 'for the lulz'. The Christchurch massacre was the perfect example of the logical conclusion of the nihilistic onanism that is 4chan shitposting.
I'd argue that setting people into the edgy -> racist to be edgy -> conspiracy theories about replacement -> violence sausage machine, on the premise of laughing at 'soydevs' (whatever that is supposed to mean) has real-life consequences just as bad as pedophilia.
> That space isn't really meant for you and doesn't have to conform to the rules of politeness of mainstream culture, much as you wouldn't go into, I don't know, a punk rock concert and ask them to tone down their language a bit.
> Would you deny these weirdos their safe space, where they can joke about wagecucks and gnutards?
As I said, the problem with these weirdos' safe-space is that it is increasingly leading to consequences in the real world. They can say whatever the hell they want in their safe-space, but you can't ask me to not tell them how stupid and/or deranged they sound when they come to my space. That's the only way to adjust their expectations ``
> Ironically, you're being more interpersonally combative/abrasive than anyone I've seen on LS's channel! Less nice, in other words. With your attitude, and your sailor's mouth, you might belong on 4chan, after all.
Almost like people can have strong opinions without having to resort to calling others 'soydevs' and 'suburban white women'.
Yep, it isn't cheap, but compared to the peace of mind of knowing you won't die from ingesting some crap, $20 sounds like a deal!
Kidding aside, I'm not sure what margins they are running on. I can't imagine they are selling enough kits that lowering the price wouldn't it make it impossible for them to exist.
Django is optimizing for the 99.99% of people rather than the 0.01% of people who manage billions of rows on a single table. I like SQLAchemy, but for most people the added cost of managing connections, transactions, have to decide whether to use the 'ORM' or not, manually having to 'commit' changes, eager-loading vs. lazy-loading, is a complete waste of time if all they want is a website that will be used by - at best - a couple hundred people concurrently.
The closest thing we have is homeless populations - they spend most of their time exclusively outside - and they still get sick: https://www.sfpublicpress.org/covid-19-cases-spike-among-hom...
So making some big claim about how outdoors transmission is impossible is kind of preposterous.