@rxzp's banner p




0 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 December 15 04:05:03 UTC


User ID: 1988



0 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2022 December 15 04:05:03 UTC


No bio...


User ID: 1988

I have to eventually accept that large vaccine trials are done authentically and with sufficient power to detect higher rates of adverse events, or that the knowledge of mercury in the body is sufficiently progressed to give some assurance of safety

There's a long history of studies showing that tobacco products are perfectly safe. Those studies had a critical flaw however, they were funded by the same industry that stood to profit from the sale of tobacco.

If you apply this logic to the modern pharmaceutical complex, including the lobbying and legal apparatus, as well as the research and publication apparatus, I think some concern is at least warranted. Why exactly do we trust the pharma companies not to corrupt the science in the name of their own profit?

I happen to agree with a lot of what he says, but it's tough to debate you on this topic, because you didn't actually say anything. Your post is a lot of heat, and very little light.

Why do you consider him a grifter? What's his grift? Why do you consider a presidential candidate with the name Kennedy to be a "random person on the internet"? From my point of view, he identifies corporate and government corruption with great accuracy, and speaks well against it.

If you have the ability to do the "first-person epistemics", then please enlighten the rest of us, so we can be less "gullible". But you've made no claims, contradicted no claims, and only asserted your perceived superiority to the kind of people who may agree with the things that RFK says.

If you have anything of value to say, I encourage you to say it.

That is to say, a proper incentive structure should not only contain costs for injecting woke politics into business but also rewards for backpedalling.

I disagree, you're only thinking of the single iteration game. In a game with many iterations it's far more important to make an example of them. Go woke, go broke - no exceptions.

I mean, if someone you loved was depressed, it would be obvious that you can help them by being kind to them, patient with them, and treating them with understanding. The same concept applies to the way you treat yourself; how you talk to yourself, how you react to your own failures and successes.

Just a suggestion for a supplemental strategy on top of your other good ideas, like tracking sleep and exercise.

Don't forget to treat yourself like a human being. Compassion, patience, kindness. Helps with depression more than anything you can measure numerically in my opinion.

I'm not suggesting any explicit conspiracy here, but I can't help notice a terrifying convergence of incentives. One corporation makes money by selling us cheap, addictive, poisoned food. Another corporation makes money by selling us a partial cure for the poison in our food. The incentives align to never, ever find a better solution to this problem, and to suppress it if it is discovered.

Could you details what you believe those flaws to be? I'm not convinced by either side of the argument yet, and I'd love to hear contradicting evidence.

I find that analogy extremely convincing because it mirrors my experience of being gaslighted, and is the reason why I even found this forum in the first place.

Yud's message is aligned with the powers that be, so his voice will be magically amplified by the algorithm. The state is scrambling to ramp up their AI capabilities. They need the boot on any ambitious small companies in the form of a "six month pause". Yud thinks he's advocating for a less dangerous arms race, in reality he's just helping the most dangerous people catch up.

This is an interesting comment as an adult who has recently realized I have autism. Where I live there doesn't exist any publicly funded way for an adult to be assessed for autism, you can pay a lot of money out of pocket to get a verification from a psychologist. This isn't like cancer where the medical system will go out of its way to save me. There isn't anything to do to save me. They don't really even care to even know. So the stigma against self-diagnosis is very curious to me.

What's the alternative to self-diagnosis? Where do I go? What's the point of that pursuit? Whether I have autism or not, the path forward is the same either way, I figure out how to cope with my struggles or I don't. There's no pill I need, no specific talk therapy which will change everything. What I needed most was an understanding of why I've been so different my whole life, and I got that without a doctor's involvement.

I think the reason why self-diagnosis is more common in the autism community is very straightforward. When you don't want or need anything from a doctor, you don't have any reason to interact with a doctor. Does that mean people self-diagnose incorrectly? For sure. Does that mean I feel any reservations about self-diagnosing? No, definitely not. It's the only sensible option for me.

Many people have the thought while driving

What if I just turned my steering wheel left and veered into oncoming traffic? I turn left all the time... I don't even think about it... It's such a familiar thing... I could just turn left right now, and many people would be dead.

This is not a dangerous or concerning thought to have. It's just idle daydreaming, it doesn't mean that driving to work is a gateway to incels attacking people with a van.

If somebody has the motive to kill others for pleasure, everything else about them may still be relatable, but that doesn't matter. If you don't share in the motive, the relatability is superficial. If you do share in the motive... unfamiliarity with guns and cars is a very flimsy obstacle to obtaining the destruction you want. If you're willing to die for it, killing a lot of people is an option all us have.

I like your points, especially #3. As @SubstantialFrivolity has mentioned, the Motte seems to be populated by either multimillionaires or loser 20 year olds. We get along surprisingly well.

When you put it this way, I can imagine a future where the rich fucks have to pay us losers for our company. The notion is us losers don't have a lot to contribute to society, but if we're particularly good at entertaining a certain kind of multimillionaire, isn't that something? On the one hand it would massively cheapen and commodify what's happening here, on the other hand us losers are very price-sensitive.

I agree fully with letting everybody eat the full loss. I just lurk more than I post.

If we don't teach our children WHY we avoid the bear cave, they won't fully understand, and will make mistakes after we're gone.

The last time anyone used a nuclear weapon in hostilities was Nagasaki. So using nukes now would break the taboo and I think that taboo needs to be enforced with the might of a thousand gods.

I've always thought this argument would be deeply unconvincing to anybody living in Russia or Japan. To them it might sound like

The last time nukes were used was when we, the Americans used them. If our enemies were to try the same thing - why it would be unspeakably horrific, and would prove our enemies are unredeemable monsters.

If this taboo needs to be enforced with the might of a thousand gods, the United States cannot be allowed to continue to exist. If they are allowed to exist after using nukes - well maybe their enemies have a chance of achieving the same feat.

It's coming out in real time as the journalists involved are going over the data that Elon is providing them and finding interesting things to share. It's not optimized for engagement because neither Elon nor the journalists are prioritizing that. It's not a television show, there's no market research happening here.

It seems to mirror the anchoring strategy he used for pricing.

"This will cost twenty dollars"

"That's too much"

"K how about 8 then"

... and suddenly 8 doesn't seem that bad.