Philosophically I really like the idea in terms of how I'd like to work. If they are paying for a data processing node then they can have that. It won't stop me from being a human, and it could give me more time to get on with my life.
> because you open yourself up for discrimination lawsuits
Is that because when looking to make a possibly subjective judgement on the performance in a test and especially what a side project shows, it then becomes more difficult to prove that the judgement was not instead made because of some protected characteristic of the candidate?
This is where a scientific approach to measuring opinions and experiences of multiple people would help. Peter Hotez has not demonstrated such an approach and has instead provided a possibly exaggerated and unproven anecdote as an input into discussion on how science is under threat.
He also did not bring up the issue of synthetic polyclonal antibodies, they seem quite relevant to the health of those who lack antibodies, and the transfer of antibodies from those who had developed them through their own COVID exposure or vaccination to those in most need of the antibodies.
I guess he did not even mention or give much thought to other ways that people who need the antibodies could get them, because he's much more interested in promoting vaccines, and treating vaccines as though they are the only option, and those who were on their last breaths could not have had their lives saved through other medical interventions after symptoms developed.
Indeed. My point is that this sets a standard for what is considered 'effective' and if it falls short of that standard, those who say it's 'ineffective' by that unrealistic standard, that is still correct.
Something can be ineffective compared to something else. Such as a COVID vaccine being ineffective compared to some expectations or representations of it.
It's been in the works for years. Very good in some ways, a bit rough round the edges though, but it's time I make a substantial demo, docs and marketing website for it. SSR was built into it from the start.
The article was both about attacks on scientists and attacks on science itself.
My view disagrees with that of Peter Hotez, as I think that science should be vigorously attacked, especially by trying to disprove all kinds of scientific things, while also trying to prove things that contradict science. I expect that after such attacks, science would be strengthened rather than destroyed though.
'ineffective' and 'effective' do not have very strict definitions. Something could be ineffective compared to how effective it was presented as being, such as the recent COVID vaccine. Here is one example of Joe Biden spreading vaccine misinformation: https://www.newsweek.com/joe-biden-2021-video-saying-vaccina...
"[COVID] vaccines are ineffective" is a fair assertion if the standard of something being 'effective' is preventing getting infected at all.
A better way to challenge the validity of that assertion is to make more effective COVID vaccines. In my view, bypassing the stage of creation of spike proteins and more directly getting the cells able to produce the relevant antibodies when needed would be a better vaccine, possibly more effective. It would also likely be safer (as the spike protein itself is dangerous, and the immune response to it can also be dangerous, by the sounds of it when the vaccine has not stayed localised in the arm but moved to the heart), so a vaccine that has solved that issue would do better when looked at in terms of a risk / reward ratio.
"[COVID] vaccines are effective [enough to be worth the risk of side-effects]" is something that would be better addressed through improving the vaccines themselves, possibly through improved public messaging, but I don't think as yet the data is there that supports that in an unequivocal way, and improved vaccines with greatly improved efficacy and safety which are then accurately described would be the best way to get the message accross.
In my view it definitely is worth engaging. In order for people to get vaccinated they need to give informed consent. In order for people to give informed consent they need to understand the risks and rewards of getting a vaccine. Arguably what I just said is my strongly held belief and inconsistent with observed evidence, but I'd still like to talk about it without calling anyone an idiot.
When it comes to training, if someone wanted to argue against my position by questioning the credentials of my scientific education perhaps they could be persuasive.
If someone was more interested in taking part in medical research/sciences and also discussions of policy relating to them I could have quite constructive conversations I expect.
I never said that my ideal video hosting website would lack moderation.
Ideally I would have control (which I can delegate) over moderation rather than someone I disagreed with, and not have to spend much time or effort on moderation either.
Training and/or fine tuning my own moderation AI would be a useful feature.
No, in my view Youtube can not do whatever they like with this kind of thing, at least as far as my potential outrage is concerned. If Youtube gives a false reason (to me as well as others) about the reason for demonetising someone then I have a problem with that.
When some content is banned from Youtube, it's got positives and negatives. Like when Alex Jones was banned, I was annoyed that I could no longer watch Alex Jones on Youtube if I ever wanted to, but more than that glad that he'd never appear in my autoplay or recommended videos. While I think there is some truth that YouTube can do as it likes, people talking about what their rules are, complaining about them, lobbying Youtube even, is all fair too. A fair complaint would be that the user does not get enough control over what gets recommended. If enough people are talking about that issue, it could motivate Youtube or a competitor to provide that kind of control, as it would be a signal that it would attract an audience to that platform and keep them engaged if recommendation control was a major concern of theirs.
Also, in some circumstances I could be quite annoyed with Youtube for not demonetising or banning some content. It could be something I don't want to watch personally, or more likely something I feel disgusted by such as Elsagate type scandals where the 'protect the children' type argument or instinct in my opinion or feelings override free speech concerns.
People criticising what Youtube does and talking about what a video hosting website would ideally do helps to create the conceptual foundations for the ideal video hosting website, and which Youtube and anyone else who reads the comments can use.
Also, discussing how such a system works produces what would be considered 'prior art' when it comes to patents.
Here is the problem with that: Apple would have a public-facing online search engine. The article addresses the advantages for Apple of having Safari users use Apple's search engine, but does not mention what the strategy would be for non-Apple users. Would they make a full-fledged search engine that optimises advertising for users who are not using Apple devices?
That's not to say it's not a good idea - a lot would depend on the quality of the search that Apple would be able to provide.
I find it just a little surprising that the former Twitter COVID 'misinformation' policy prohibited sharing details concerning the different vulnerabilities between the young and the old. I'd think that an analysis of what information this 'misinformation' policy disallowed would figure into discussions of how the social media sites can aggressively pursue an anti-science through prohibiting the transmission of scientific information.
I know that. When talking about language and script transmission it makes more sense in my view to talk about Phoenicians rather than Carthaginians, unless there is any specific linguistic difference such as dialect that needs to be taken into account (and in this case I don't think there is any such detail). It seems like an assumption not based on fact to assume transmission via Carthage rather than other routes.