@Devonshire's banner p

Devonshire


				

				

				
0 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 05 13:46:29 UTC

				

User ID: 572

Devonshire


				
				
				

				
0 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2022 September 05 13:46:29 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 572

Cool, but I am not sure why this was a response to me.

Putting aside the logical incoherence of transmission without infection

Yes, the thing that I never said, it is logically incoherent. Yes.

You are saying "stops infection" where I am saying "stops transmission."

I guess when I said "only testing" I should have said "only proving."

Alex deciding to keep on holding onto this issue is fine. Right or wrong, it is A-OK for him to keep going on it.

But Alex demanding Scott's attention -- whether or not Alex is right -- needs to be shut down.

Speaking from the minority position, the duty is on Alex to behave in a fashion that makes people want to engage with him, instead of him constantly giving off danger signs that say "DO NOT TOUCH".

I am sure some goof will say HA HA YOU ADMIT YOU DO NOT CARE ABOUT WHO IS RIGHT, THEREFORE I WIN, and

  1. you can never make sure you get the last word,

  2. damn straight, I care much more about not ending up some stalker's new hobby.

In high school there were people who would rile up the mentally-challenged kids, get them to say "fuck" or go into a physical rage, which would obviously get the mentally-challenged kid in trouble with the bureaucracy. It was very funny to do and if you were bored it was funny to watch. (Some of these kids found it such a cheat code to positive attention that they failed to develop any other personality.)

Disney casting a black person to play the whitest of white characters seems to me just riling up the mentally-challenged people in order to see what they do. Kind of lame for a party who is supposed to be the master of content.

You are looking at "how do you get A without B" when I am looking at "given B can we stop A" which is a different thing.

I just pulled up Alex's post-summary page, and of his recent articles 6 are clearly about Ivermectin (maybe the others are too but not obviously from the title or summary).

Five of the six of them mention Scott in the title or summary. What. The. Fuck.

Maybe Alex does not know he is acting like a fucking stalker. Maybe no one has told him.

otherwise you're giving one side a blank check to never address valid criticism

I truly and honestly think it is bad that this issue has gotten so little debate.

But it is not Scott's fault that there is so little debate here. Scott has done much more to make sure Alex has his voice heard than anyone else. And the reward is to get constant articles written about him. No wonder no one else wants to engage with this loser.

Alex is picking on Scott because he can pick on Scott. If Alex attacks CNN, no one cares, there is no chance of CNN admitting they are wrong or even acknowledging Alex's existence. But Scott gave Alex some attention once, and the only possible victory Alex has left is getting Scott to admit that he was somehow unfair to Alex.

(Scott has dozens of old articles with the basic complaint "feminists spend most of their energy attacking men who deign listen to women instead of men who abuse women" and this is basically just that all over again.)

It is bad that Alex is in that situation where he cannot get a fair debate partner. But he needs to stop attacking the one person who showed him a shred of dignity once. Do not be the guy who stalks the girl that said hi to him at a party. It is creepy and it sets up bad incentives for anyone to ever talk to you.

I guess if you see everyone in two clearly defined camps.

I just see one gang going around town inflicting violence against randos, and then a second gang is showing up, saying "it is bad that the first gang is inflicting violence against randos," and then inflicting violence against some randos themselves while saying stories about how this is all part of some grand plan to reduce total violence in the world.

Or they just like inflicting violence. It is fun, after all.

Republican Commissions to find fraud

The guy I responded to said that Republicans were "unable to perform any investigation into it for 30+ years."

There are absolutely investigations into fraud. Your very sentence implies their existence!

I do NOT think that, as many Democrats say, that "looking for fraud and not finding any means we can stop looking."

But I also do NOT think that "if we look for fraud and and do not find enough to flip an election, that means we were just not permitted to investigate hard enough."

Oh okay sorry for wasting your time.

Your link does not work for me, mostly because their IT systems sucks and not through any fault of yours.

I took Organic Chemistry I my Sophomore year and I vaguely remember I was taking it late. (I passed after a rough start because I needed to figure out what to study, which should not have been as hard as it was to figure out, but whatever.)

Are you talking about the normal bug bounty market? It is a bit hyperbolic to call it "ransom" and I am having trouble thinking of times where it was an existential risk.

EDIT The point about ransomware is very good and what I should have thought of when given the word ransom.

I am fine with Alex keeping up his beating of this, er, horse. Right or wrong, go on. I have commented previously about how the media has not been fair at all to the pro-ivermectin viewpoint so someone has to keep that torch alive.

But he keeps on wanting to talk about how Scott has not properly dealt with his argument. He mentions Scott twice as many times as he mentions ivermectin. He even grants Scott the honor of being steelmanned.

I think the refugee framing is fine, and even more it means that the load has to be shared.

The government can make you marriage legal, but no one can make other people actually respect you.

This might change my mind. Thanks.

I had kind of moved, weakly, towards accident (despite previously saying it was not). But this strongly suggests some deliberate agent did it and they do not want to reveal their monitoring capabilities that shows how.

I am steelmanning something I disagree with so you should not keep on asking me to explain exceptions, but there are places where you want enough plausible deniability to get through the day, including the ability to publicly declare victory to your homeland, which can be a valuable thing.

I am not a fan of the idea, but to pull it off you need some kind of publicity about the deal anyway, so you would negotiate the deal and then leak rumors that it happened.

I already told you that I am skeptical of crypto-voting systems especially because of user education so switching from "lol what about zero days" to "lol math nerds!" is not really responsive to anything I said.

See https://www.themotte.org/post/86/culture-war-roundup-for-the-week/11192?context=8#context

But if aliens showed up and said they would drop rocks on us if we did not implement an E2E voting everywhere in the country within 20 years, we absolutely could do it, and it would be pretty secure.

Applebee's is largely automated in that most of their food is mass-produced off-site and then heated in a microwave. People who go out do not want to dictate their order to a robot that they might have to outsmart, like I have to trick my washing machine and dishwasher into doing things.

The last mile will always be hard.

I am not sure who in this conversation said "there will never be a down year" but anyone who said that was wrong.

In an E2E voting scenario, the design goal is (more or less, there are different systems) that you have the math so you can sit at home and verify that your vote was counted, often without anyone else being able to verify how you voted, and even if the people who are running the election are trying to screw you over.

Right, Jim is saying that someone blew it up, that there was lots of incentive for people to blow it up, and is pleased as punch about it blowing up.

But the other poster seemed convinced that this was an "admission" of USG involvement.