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

Linus Torvalds on mRNA Vaccines

lore.kernel.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

591–600 of 649 posts

Re: Linus Torvalds on mRNA Vaccines

#591

Post by aantix »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #472
aantix wrote: post #469

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When Linus starts out with "Please keep your insane" - the reader/original poster will enter a defensive mode. Imagine that internal monologue - "Am I insane? I'm smart? I'm an analytic person. Why is he calling me insane? HE'S the insane one!" Because Linus thinks this is a logical fight. But it's not. Information is _not_ all that's needed to be persuaded. And if he really care about the vax effort, his efforts wou…

> When Linus starts out with "Please keep your insane" - the reader/original poster will enter a defensive mode You're assuming the goal is convincing the original poster. Given that goal, you are correct. The counterargument: OP doesn't matter. Their effect on third parties is key. Reasonably engaging with OP validates their thinking. (Which, to reiterate, is nonsense.) Yes– calm, patient rhetoric has a higher chanc…

Why would linuses response discourage third party interest?

He just belittled. An abusive response. Hes smart but at the same time emotionally inept.

The kind of guy who can’t determine whether he’s moving the line forward or back.

He’s sad. He’d have zero placement in sales, therapy, or anywhere else where persuasion takes place.

Re: Linus Torvalds on mRNA Vaccines

#592

Post by tekknik »

Nursie wrote: post #493
tekknik wrote: post #453

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Deplatforming seems to work if it's goal is to simply limit the spread of a message. Deplatforming seems to work if it's goal is to simply limit free speech and control the narrative. There fixed that for you. > Alex Jones has just as big of a viewership as when he was on Youtube? Alex Jones got his youtube viewership from his radio show, he’s still quite active. All this did was prove those that believed him that…

> Deplatforming seems to work if it's goal is to simply limit free speech You're still perfectly free to spew your crazy, you just don't get to stand on my lawn to do so. Good, old-fashioned conservative value that. You have never had a right to use someone else's infrastructure like this, and hopefully never will, as that is a scary precedent that doesn't respect the rights of creators and owners of such platforms.

So by mentioning conservative value you assume I’m on the right? I don’t agree that someone should be able to give some people a megaphone, but not others.

Re: Linus Torvalds on mRNA Vaccines

#593

Post by tekknik »

kaba0 wrote: post #532
tekknik wrote: post #519

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well I didn’t bring up the Magna Carta. And you’re wrong again, there’s even a story in the Bible about the tower of babel. Same exact thing. When humans, all humans, can communicate easily and quickly it’s dangerous.

How is tower of Babel relevant? It’s about why do we speak different languages. How is anything done in the previous tens of thousands of years similar to ordering a bunch of bots to say what I want? When could an arbitrary algorithm decide what is seen by whom, completely opaque to almost everyone? Yeah sure the Church censored some shit. But that’s not at all similar to youtube/facebook’s algorithm and it’s dishone…

Man that really got you riled up didn’t it?

It’s relevant because the reason the languages were confounded was for the exact same problem we have today. Too many people with a megaphone. Too easy to spread information, good or bad.

Please point to where I’ve mentioned either facebook or youtube. No idea where this is coming from.

Re: Linus Torvalds on mRNA Vaccines

#594

Post by tekknik »

stjohnswarts wrote: post #539
tekknik wrote: post #448

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They are actively trying to spread even more misinformation. This should be contained just like we contain viruses. It's not really up for debate. Don't like a particular vaccine? Try to get another one if you can. Here we are again with the force and control. Shutting down “misinformation” means you must be able to define what “misinformation” is. We’ve made mistakes on this many times historically and we still ha…

I think you're making a mistake in assuming the Linux kernel maillist is a free speech, anything goes, zone it isn't.

Or am I inferring that any place that allows anybody to speak should be a “free speech zone”?

Re: Linus Torvalds on mRNA Vaccines

#595

Post by tekknik »

DynamicStatic wrote: post #501
tekknik wrote: post #447

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Not taking a vaccine if you’re young and healthy is a purely selfish move. Not taking a vaccine should be reserved for only those people who cannot take a vaccine… Why does this always resort to force and control? Do you really not understand how that just turns people off?

Turn people off? Feel free to be turned off, no-one is doing this for fun. The whole point is doing your duty to protect the vulnerable. It's crazy to me that I see more insane opinions on HN about this than on reddit. Always considered HN a more rational crowd but I'm very disappointed by the users in this thread.

> The whole point is doing your duty to protect the vulnerable.

By potentially harming myself? Who exactly charged me with this duty and was it by my choice?

Do you assume that HN harbors the same groupthink that reddit does? Do you not want discourse? Do you assume all others believe what you believe (that we have some obligation to potentially harm ourselves for the good of the many thing)? That’s exactly what I love about HN, that thing called diversity.

Also your attempt to shame me into alignment of your believes failed.

Re: Linus Torvalds on mRNA Vaccines

#596

Post by tekknik »

kaba0 wrote: post #533
tekknik wrote: post #526

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why don’t we just let the healthy people decide for themselves? Do you know everybody’s medical condition? Are you a physician or nurse in any way? You’re just regurgitating Fauci’s ramblings without regard to individuals concerns demanding they get the vaccine. How many people do you think you’ve convinced to get the vaccine?

> Do you know everybody’s medical condition? Does a layperson know about how his/her condition is relevant to vaccination? No. They will ask a doctor about that - who will give them an answer whether they can or can’t get the vaccine. And I’m not even living in the US, I’m just not crazy and know that it is the only way to protect ourselves and our community.

> Does a layperson know about how his/her condition is relevant to vaccination?

Hmm, maybe this is what you do, but do you really thing everybody goes to the Dr for everything? Some people are well within the means of deciding for themselves, some not. And when you have the “top” Dr in the nation failing to build trust by opening his mouth before he’s sure then all sane people have is themselves. It’s insane to me how many people blindly trust the vaccine when we have new information nearly weekly about how it effects different cohorts differently. But we’re sure it’s safe right? No, the reality is people don’t care if someone gets the vaccine and dies, “just do your duty”. I’m good.

Re: Linus Torvalds on mRNA Vaccines

#597

Post by tekknik »

bmn__ wrote: post #560
tekknik wrote: post #521

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Because religions are still dangerous animals With all but one preaching peace, and not hate, please explain.

There is a vast gulf between what is preached and what adherents do or don't do. Knowing human nature, I think all religions have suffered abuse in the form of having peace on paper, but inciting hate through opportunists.

> There is a vast gulf between what is preached and what adherents do or don't do.

Oh ffs evidence plz.

Re: Linus Torvalds on mRNA Vaccines

#598

Post by tekknik »

gremlinsinc wrote: post #580
tekknik wrote: post #441

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just like I’m at a loss for words as to why you think religion is a source of control. Unless you mean discipline. Why do people still have to attack religion?

Assume for a minute that you don't believe in God. Then explain how religion is not used to control (read: enforce moral standards). God himself throws a temper and kills entire cities when they don't obey him, like any good dad would do, am I right? Murder their kids if they misbehave... (Sodom/Gomorrah).

> Sodom/Gomorrah

Cause that’s the whole story right? Both of those cities weren’t destroying humanity at the time right? Have you read the part about cutting off your hand if it causes you to sin? Do you understand that saying your human body is who you are is equivalent to saying your name defines you? Do you understand religion at all other than some minor studying you’ve not really done?

> Assume for a minute that you don't believe in God. Then explain how religion is not used to control (read: enforce moral standards).

Is this how you also explain laws? As control? What about discipline? Is this also control? Clearly both are. Do you now understand how control != bad? What argument are you trying to make exactly? Anarchy? But you'll also note, in religion it's said you will try to not sin and fail. And always be forgiven. So there's no punishment here. None. So you're arguing against discipline, laws, morality and civilization in general.

Re: Linus Torvalds on mRNA Vaccines

#599

Post by XorNot »

orwin wrote: post #510
quanticle wrote: post #506

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem isn't that our authorities are changing their beliefs based on new evidence coming in. The problem is that our authorities are changing beliefs based on the current political situation, pretending that that reflects shifting evidence and, worst of all, not admitting that they've changed their views. Let's take the current debate over the "lab leak" hypothesis as an example. A large amount of the evidence,…

At the time, i was asking myself why the lab-leak was rejected. I mean, its obviously not human-made, but why couldn't it be a contagion inside the lab from an already made virus. Now, maybe its reactance, but i believe the zoonose more likely.

Because, if there was a non-human made virus being studied in a lab which was human-infectious...then that virus would already be out there in the wild unless you'd made a specific effort to eradicate it like we did with smallpox.

"Lab-leak" is non-sensical in all forms which don't begin with "lab evolved/bioengineered" and while not completely implausible, the methodology for selective rapid-evolution of a virus requires the exact same conditions as are trivially recreated in the population and human-animal contact regime of greater China.

Re: Linus Torvalds on mRNA Vaccines

#600

Post by lodi »

avz wrote: post #325
trutannus wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Like, having this magic, absolutely mind boggling potion that prevents serious illness and death isn't already the lottery win of our lifetime A lot of it boils down to people not trusting what they're seeing. Frankly, governments have done the world a disservice by speaking before they really had all the information at the start of the pandemic. In Canada at least an insane amount of what was said turned out to be…

> [...] lots of people see what looks like the "story changing", and distrust anything coming out of their government, [...]. Changing and updating our beliefs as evidence comes in is a fundamental ability that underlies numerous activities from scientific research to debugging software to driving on a congested road network. Why is it a problem for public health officials to update and change policy as we learn more…

> Why is it a problem for public health officials to update and change policy as we learn more about the virus?

That's not the problem. Arrogance is the problem. We were led to believe that X was established scientific consensus one week and ¬X the next. Real science has error bars and confidence intervals. If you're projecting from a small amount of data, the responsible thing to do is to disclose how uncertain your conclusions are.

(Edit: maybe the real science did have confidence intervals; the public communication certainly didn't though.)

Secondly, we had many clear contradictions over the past year. How can it be dangerous to attend an outdoor soccer game but safe to attend a BLM protest? How can it be shamefully unsafe to walk past someone in a corridor without masks and 6ft of social distancing but totally fine to sit and eat in a restaurant for an unbounded amount of time?

Also it really doesn't help public trust when for example Fauci openly admits that he lied to the public about mask efficacy to preserve supplies for hospitals, but of course now you can trust him to be telling the truth on this other thing here.

Post reply on HN