Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Oh, 2022

antipope.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 557 posts

Re: Oh, 2022

#141

Post by HarryHirsch »

maxerickson wrote: post #128
TranquilMarmot wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I live in the US and got Chickenpox as a child, I think from a classic "Chickenpox party". I'm not sure if I was also vaccinated against it or not... I got Shingles at 25 (I'm 30 now). I didn't believe it at first because I thought Shingles was an "old person's disease". I remember going to the doctor the day it started, and he just prescribed me some painkillers. I said, "I don't think I'll need those I don't feel t…

There's a shingles vaccine, though it's only approved for over 50: https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd/shingles/public/shingrix/in... Doesn't seem to be much out there about whether that is because of insurance coverage or if that is the population they tested in or if there are additional factors.

The shingles vaccine is a more concentrated version of the chickenpox vaccine because immune response isn't as efficient in older people. You might consider getting the chickenpox shot, shingles are awful.

Re: Oh, 2022

#142

Post by lazyasciiart »

maxerickson wrote: post #31
noah_buddy wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there a deeper meaning to take from this? Some people block anyone negative on Twitter. He's free to use the platform as he pleases, I see no reason why someone should feel obligated to have or present an externally valid reason for blocking others.

No, I'm just petty and small minded. On the other hand, when someone confidently opines about a lot of things and then rejects mild corrections (I literally just said something like "thing isn't part of B, it's owned by the same parent company"), you wonder what facts are feeding into those opinions.

You didn’t though, you said something much much less useful than that -“you’re slightly wrong, here’s a Wikipedia article for you to read”

Re: Oh, 2022

#143

Post by lazyasciiart »

cwmma wrote: post #28
noah_buddy wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there a deeper meaning to take from this? Some people block anyone negative on Twitter. He's free to use the platform as he pleases, I see no reason why someone should feel obligated to have or present an externally valid reason for blocking others.

Stross just blocks nazis and terfs even when they are polite about it. This pisses some people off who see JUST ASKING QUESTIONS!

Polite about……being nazis? Good for him for not lending credence to the idea that civility makes anything acceptable.

Re: Oh, 2022

#144

Post by CamperBob2 »

supperburg wrote: post #120
JoeAltmaier wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's specious to claim knowledge of things unmeasured? Dial it back a bit there - maybe 'somewhat undercounted'. And is that criteria made up too? Show me.

I don’t need to show you, go listen to the Stanford professor. Lex Fridman podcast in the past week or two. Am I an idiot for believing a current Stanford professor? Is it not a reputable source?

You're not an idiot for believing the professor, but you could stand to apply more critical thought to the question, and look for additional sources before thoughtlessly propagating what you heard on a podcast. Just because "a professor" says something doesn't mean you should reflexively believe it.

As an example, a Stanford professor by the name of Dr. Scott Atlas was a prominent voice within the Trump administration who actively advocated disobedience of public-health orders at the state level. When the professor posted this (since-deleted) tweet:

https://i.imgur.com/z0OsMcg.png

.... I wrote his department head. "I thought you should know that some idiot is out there claiming to be associated with your university." They replied, "Agreed, this is irresponsible at best."

Funny thing, though. Dr. Atlas is still a Stanford-affiliated professor, more than a year later: https://profiles.stanford.edu/scott-atlas Tenure is a powerful thing, I guess. Stanford apparently can't distance themselves from this clown, but you and I can and should. That's not who you listened to, by any chance, is it?

Re: Oh, 2022

#145

Post by josephcsible »

saalweachter wrote: post #136
supperburg wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t need to show you, go listen to the Stanford professor. Lex Fridman podcast in the past week or two. Am I an idiot for believing a current Stanford professor? Is it not a reputable source?

0.25% of the US has already died of COVID-19. It doesn't matter who said it, how can 0.02% be a reasonable estimate for the IFR of the disease?

This was already explained upthread: "the death count is exaggerated because the criteria for a Covid death is that a person is dead and also tests positive for Covid regardless of how the person really died."

Re: Oh, 2022

#146

Post by barry-cotter »

zapataband1 wrote: post #139
barry-cotter wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sweden exists. They never locked down. The Hong Kong flu of the 1950s[1] happened. It was a really bad flu season. Many, many old, very young and sick people died. Civilization was never in danger from COVID. Civilization survived smallpox. The Inca civilization came very close to surviving getting the entire old world disease package and being invaded by people with horses, iron weapons and gunpowder all in the spac…

If a virus infects more people it has more of a chance of spreading and more of a chance of mutating into a deadlier virus that affects a different demographic. Bringing sweden up but not the vast number of countries or active measure still currently in place, including mass vaccinations, seems to serve a narrow narritive. Bringing up civilizations and cultures that did in-fact get destroyed by viruses doesn't really…

The Inca didn't even have the concept of infectious disease, or quarantine. If you want a 99.9th percentile bad outcome look at Black Death Norway. Civilization didn't collapse in the face of 60% of the population dying. These are people without the germ theory of disease, never mind antibiotics, antivirals and the state capacity to seal borders completely and modern hospitals. COVID can be really, really bad without it ever having been likely to be a civilizational or species level threat.

Re: Oh, 2022

#147

Post by [deleted] »

ehsankia wrote: post #140
gman83 wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Last time I checked, there were dozens of commercial satellite ISPs ramping up their launches. Do these companies have a plan to deal with potential collisions and the potential space debris that would cause?

So is the earth, really. Reminds me of how all humans would fit in a ball of meat in Central Park [0]. The satellites aren't much bigger than humans, so even if there was a starlink satellite for every single human, it would still barely make a dent. Let alone the fact that the surface area would be larger 2000KM up, and without oceans. [0] https://www.reddit.com/r/theydidthemath/comments/p0qws3/self...

[deleted]

Re: Oh, 2022

#148

Post by groby_b »

SideburnsOfDoom wrote: post #69
TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #9

These predictions are like puzzle pieces that don't fit together. If 50% of the population are COVID invalids, who's going to be doing the (building) work for a new economic boom? You can't seriously say "I'm going to make predictions - but let's just ignore the most important health event for over a century." So - mRNA vaccinations. If you can vaccinate against AIDS, flu, cancer (being investigated...), and the rest…

> If 50% of the population are COVID invalids, who's going to be doing the (building) work for a new economic boom? This is a good question to raise, and IMHO does not invalidate the original piece: Two plausible predictions, but how do they interact? Which one gets the short end of the stick? Are the able-bodied hard at work throwing up temporary homes for invalids?

Combine this with "but robots", and a somewhat small group of actual human beings will still be needed to do work.

Combine that with the eugenics trend we're currently on, and, well, happy dreams.

Re: Oh, 2022

#149

Post by Laforet »

tome wrote: post #48
maxerickson wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mute though. And I learned something about his concern over accuracy. For instance, reddit hasn't quite lived in the shadow of Conde Nast in the meantime.

Yes, muting seems far less aggressive than blocking to me. For one thing the mutee doesn't even know it has happened. I don't quite understand why some Twitter users seems to take delight in announcing they have blocked someone.

It is an announcement to the world that those are the type of questions and discussions that shall not be entertained. It may seem a bit aggressive but for any public figure who manages their own Twitter account it is not a bad idea when you get the same tweets thrown at you all day.

https://www.videogameschronicle.com/blog/hideki-kamiya-twitt...

Re: Oh, 2022

#150

Post by rhaps0dy »

gmuslera wrote: post #19

Should be be worried that the author of Accelerando complains about things going too fast? Future is complex, and not only "good" developments happens and start changing everything faster than ever before, bad ones does too. And we aren't rational enough to avoid the bad ones. Anyway, I'm more worried about the consequences of climate change that are not the slow rise of the global sea level than about COVID. That is…

> Should be be worried that the author of Accelerando complains about things going too fast?

I think Accelerando itself is precisely complaining that things are going too fast. In the specific scenario in the novel, the incomprehensibly fast automation of capitalism is going to eat us all.

Post reply on HN