> On Monday, the highest state court in Massachusetts accepted Kauders' argument, holding that merely mentioning terms and conditions on a registration page wasn't sufficient to create a binding contract between Kauders and Uber.
> Once someone has formed an identity around some core assumptions of the world, anything that challenges it will be seen as an attack on one’s ego.
That's hard to escape, and it might well be a quite useful mechanism in many cases, but multiply that by filter bubbles and echo chambers, and it can become difficult for otherwise reasonable people to have conversations about many topics. It happens here too but I would say less than in other parts of the worlds. Here = HN. Worlds = Parallel realities that get created that way ^
I would argue some media outlets are more reliable than others, as can be established for oneself by looking at their track records and following the money. I think this ^ applies as is to mainstream media in general, pick your flavour, but some organisations are trying to do journalism right. You ought to be careful before defaulting to not believing anything you read. I think using your discretion in selecting trusted sources goes a long way in ensuring some level of information integrity. Add to that a layer of fact-checking resources, using your common sense and trying to read between the lines, and you might end up with a coherent world view that you can use to interface with other people. Getting your propaganda from multiple sides can also add scope to your experience of the world from what other people write about it. That being said, I reckon it's a complex mess ... my $0,02.
You must be aware of this but here's who I consider ( to my knowledge ) to be at the forefront of those questions and the best documented / systematic and comprehensive resource ;
As a side note, and from someone with negative karma, you may wish to peruse my recent comments about Covid, some seem to think they are unthinkable ideas while I persist in saying they are worth considering, although it is about an ongoing black swan and therefore probably not within the scope of your survey, they fit your description in that way.
Textbook example ^ and right on the money, I think. You barely even have to send anyone " over there " just take what they produce and roll with that. Free goodies. Of course if you have a few idle provocateurs, it's probably a good return on investment.
Honest question ; why is this thread [flagged] ? I get the answer might be obvious and disappointing, but surely the thread is not being cancelled right ?
Not at all. I wasn't arguing against the vaccines but against blanket lockdowns ( EDIT : I guess that was really not clear, since I was initially arguing about that, my bad ). I have reservations about the vaccines, but on a voluntary basis, it seems to make a lot of sense that the people in the at-risk demographics and those in daily direct contact with them should get it. The damage from the lockdowns however could be equal to or worse than the damage they seek to prevent. This damage not being limited solely to loss of life but also including that. This is not even a marginal opinion, as per my previous comments, it is backed by many scientists and the WHO itself.
Feel free to swarm the karma out of me for clarifying that ( not necessarily directed to parent comment ).
> If you care for your own health but not for the health of the people in the community you live in, then this makes perfect sense.
It's not that I don't care for the health of others, it's that I care more about the health of 98% of the population ( including mine and that of people I know ) that are more or less invulnerable to the virus than about the health of people that would die ( for the most part ) within the next few years from just about any cause, and that are not currently enjoying any quality of life nor contributing to society. It's a matter of proportionate and rational response. See Focused Protection.
I am for throwing everything we got for minimizing those deaths, up to a certain point and within what is reasonable.
> this entire account consists of argument about Covid
More like 11 / 21 total threads I commented in.
Given this is a pretty hot and important topic, and that the flow of information about it is restricted ( censored ) through various mechanisms, especially the stance I have on it, which is best resumed by the Great Barrington Declaration ( signed by 13,000 + medical and public health scientists that I keep linking to ) I believe this is not an unreasonable ratio. In any event, your claim is false. If you check some of the stuff I've linked to, you may find I have some objectively valid points.
Meanwhile, multiple sources suggest that they are vastly inflated ;
" ... That, of course, can mean anything from having had a recent positive COVID-19 test (which may or may not have been accurate) to having tested positive months earlier to simply having been declared positive based on symptoms (with hospitals facing strong financial incentives to claim COVID-19 deaths).
For the sake of argument, however, let us assume that the CDC’s numbers are valid. Out of those 164,280 deaths, the CDC calculates that just six percent of them, or 9,857, were caused solely by COVID-19. “For deaths with conditions or causes in addition to COVID-19, on average, there were 2.6 additional conditions or causes per death,” the agency says. In other words, 94 percent of those who died with COVID-19 already had two or more other serious health issues such as hypertension or diabetes." [0]
How many of these people would have died in the next year without the intervention of Covid ? The general idea is that lockdowns are doing way more harm than they prevent. As acknowledged by the WHO and many others ;
" “We in the World Health Organization do not advocate lockdowns as the primary means of control of this virus,” Dr. David Nabarro said to The Spectator’s Andrew Neil. “The only time we believe a lockdown is justified is to buy you time to reorganize, regroup, rebalance your resources, protect your health workers who are exhausted, but by and large, we’d rather not do it.” " [0].
" ... thousands of medical health experts signed their names to a petition calling for the end of coronavirus lockdowns, citing the “irreparable damage” they’ve caused.
"As infectious disease epidemiologists and public health scientists, we have grave concerns about the damaging physical and mental health impacts of the prevailing COVID-19 policies, and recommend an approach we call Focused Protection,” read the petition, known as the Great Barrington Declaration. "Current lockdown policies are producing devastating effects on short and long-term public health." " [1]
> American people are crying out for help and dying − not from a virus with an “infection fatality rate” of 0.15-0.2% across all age groups, and 0.03 to 0.04% in those under 70 years old. (This means, 99.96% of nearly everyone who gets the virus lives.) No, the desperation and distress are in response to the government’s unprecedented mandates and lockdowns.
Yup, as common sense dictates and as highlighted in the Great Barrington Declaration ;
> Azat is a dedicated mathematician who published two mathematical papers while being in the detention center. Statements in support of Azat were released by the Société Mathématique de France and by the American Mathematical Society in which mathematicians demanded a fair and transparent trial for Azat.
> It's practically impossible to shield the vulnerable population from a highly contagious disease that is rampant in the non-vulnerable population - someone after all needs to tend for the vulnerable.
"By way of example, nursing homes should use staff with acquired immunity and perform frequent testing of other staff and all visitors. Staff rotation should be minimized."
That sounds like a pretty big deal.