Meta: I was curious to see a dead comment by user redis_mlc here, and also seeing their history about 80% of their comments had the same status. The contents however seemed fine. What's going on here?
The Reemergent 1977 H1N1 Strain and the Gain-of-Function Debate (2015)
11–20 of 217 posts
Re: The Reemergent 1977 H1N1 Strain and the Gain-of-Function Debate (2015)
#12Sharri Markson's book on corona is released tomorrow. She's been the leading journalist since early 2020 on corona. NTD Media also ignored the global embargo coordinated by the CCP/Peter Daszak/Fauci.
She helped promote and mislead around claims to do with hydroxychloroquine or ivermectin, mis-identifying chemical differences between human formulations and animal formulations, leading to hospital admissions. [1]
There's no conspiracy here - she's actively dangerous to people's health. More interested in promoting an alternative viewpoint than whether that viewpoint actually has merit.
[0] https://www.theguardian.com/media/2021/aug/04/sharri-markson...
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/sep/02/sydne...
Re: The Reemergent 1977 H1N1 Strain and the Gain-of-Function Debate (2015)
#13Earlier quoted context omitted.
I noticed that user too, and was "impressed" how most of their comments are downvoted to death. Some of them might have deserved it, but others seem totally normal. I guess they're expressing strong and unpopular opinions..?
There's a fair bit of antagonism and peculiar beliefs from what I saw. Referring to HN as "mostly Marxist" is a prime example.
I've found that going too partisan on HN ends in down votes.
I'd probably agree with some of the politics they're pushing but I'd avoid bringing that discussion here. It doesn't fit with the rules here and I think the rules here are responsible for one of the friendliest environments online.
Re: The Reemergent 1977 H1N1 Strain and the Gain-of-Function Debate (2015)
#14Meta: I was curious to see a dead comment by user redis_mlc here, and also seeing their history about 80% of their comments had the same status. The contents however seemed fine. What's going on here?
If someone is willing to stop doing that they can email the mods and often get another chance. Dang even use to point it out while banning someone.
Re: The Reemergent 1977 H1N1 Strain and the Gain-of-Function Debate (2015)
#15Re: The Reemergent 1977 H1N1 Strain and the Gain-of-Function Debate (2015)
#16Re: The Reemergent 1977 H1N1 Strain and the Gain-of-Function Debate (2015)
#17Re: The Reemergent 1977 H1N1 Strain and the Gain-of-Function Debate (2015)
#18Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's a fair bit of antagonism and peculiar beliefs from what I saw. Referring to HN as "mostly Marxist" is a prime example.
Yeah the comments are all political and some are less than friendly in their tone. I've found that going too partisan on HN ends in down votes. I'd probably agree with some of the politics they're pushing but I'd avoid bringing that discussion here. It doesn't fit with the rules here and I think the rules here are responsible for one of the friendliest environments online.
American Reddit seems, on average, quite a lot more left leaning than HN. I guess programmers are too individualist to be attracted to Marxism en masse. Also, highly paid employees tend to feel the brunt of the current Western taxation policy, because they have fewer loopholes to use and they tend to live in high CoL areas at the same time.
Re: The Reemergent 1977 H1N1 Strain and the Gain-of-Function Debate (2015)
#19https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/u-s-lifts-morator...
Re: The Reemergent 1977 H1N1 Strain and the Gain-of-Function Debate (2015)
#20Sharri Markson's book on corona is released tomorrow. She's been the leading journalist since early 2020 on corona. NTD Media also ignored the global embargo coordinated by the CCP/Peter Daszak/Fauci.
Markson is also the reason that SkyNews was temporarily banned on YouTube [0], for repeatedly delivering information that was more grounded in the imagination, than in anything with actual evidence backing it. She helped promote and mislead around claims to do with hydroxychloroquine or ivermectin, mis-identifying chemical differences between human formulations and animal formulations, leading to hospital admissions.…
Let's be clear about the fact that in 0% of any cases where speech was not directly illegal was censorship the right choice.
>> There's no conspiracy here - she's actively dangerous to people's health.
So is McDonald's every time they advertise and sell any of their garbage product. And yet we recognize that it is important that people make up their own minds than do 'what is right', because it is not our place to determine what is right for them.