sarker
It isn't happening, and if it is, it's a bad thing
No bio...
User ID: 636
sarker
It isn't happening, and if it is, it's a bad thing
1yr ago
So... there's no actual vaccine that you "believe in", and your belief is strictly in the theoretical (but so far unattained) possibility of producing a good vaccine?
sarker
It isn't happening, and if it is, it's a bad thing
1yr ago
Let's not do the thing where the poster is directionally correct, but we're nitpicking the details. Yeah, it's not 100 shots, but it's a lot, and it's a lot more than before.
Wait a second. There is no "directionally correct" here - the poster said not 100 but "hundreds" and the true number is around 30. It's "directionally correct" in the sense that the sign is right, but that's about it. If he said "thousands", would that still be "directionally correct"?
And it's not a semantic nit, because we can mostly all agree that the ideal number of vaccines is greater than 0 and less than "hundreds". So where exactly we are on that spectrum is basically the entire discussion.
Let's flip it. Why should an infant be receiving Hep B and Covid vaccines? Why should they receive any vaccines that they didn't in 1990 (or whenever the Chicken Pox vaccine came out).
I don't think there's a good reason to vaccinate infants against COVID.
I don't know why infants are vaccinated against hep B but it's been recommended for newborns since the 1991 (and patented in 1972), so by your heuristic that one seems pretty safe.
The post-1990s vaccines to have vanishingly little benefit and unquantified risk.
It's not clear to me that this is the case, but I'd be curious to see if anyone has actually looked at this rigorously. I don't know off the top of my head which ones are post 1990s.
sarker
It isn't happening, and if it is, it's a bad thing
1yr ago
That's much closer to the truth but not necessarily true.
- RSV is required depending on the mother's antibody status.
- Hep B can be done in the second month of life.
- So can the RSV vaccine.
So taking those two at 2 months instead of 3 months cuts the number to 5.
sarker
It isn't happening, and if it is, it's a bad thing
1yr ago
The vaccine schedule now includes hundreds of vaccines
False. I count 32 doses recommended to all children from age 0 to 18, not counting a yearly flu vaccine and one dose of a covid vaccine.
https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines-children/schedules/index.html
This is a perfect example of the belief set I am talking about. The RFK supporters I know believe that kids are getting tens of vaccines in a single day.
I think it's pretty reasonable to believe in vaccines as a technology in general and that a lot of them have been captured by special interests.
Okay. Which vaccines in particular do you believe in?
sarker
It isn't happening, and if it is, it's a bad thing
1yr ago
If the vaccine manufacturer is not capturing all the benefit of the vaccine but is liable for all the downside, it's clear that the math isn't mathing even for plainly good vaccines.
sarker
It isn't happening, and if it is, it's a bad thing
1yr ago
Let's do a little back of the envelope calculation.
Infectious disease mortality declined during the first 8 decades of the 20th century from 797 deaths per 100000 in 1900 to 36 deaths per 100000 in 1980.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9892452/
The actual infectious disease mortality in 1980 was 80k people. At 1900 mortality rates, it would have been 1.8M, so let's ballpark it at 1.7M deaths averted thanks to sanitation and antibiotics. FEMA values a human life at $7.5M. 1.7M people * $7.5M/person = $13T. US GDP in 1980 was $3T.
Obviously this is highly simplified, but I think it's safe to say that vaccine companies did not capture a large part of the benefits of vaccines.
sarker
It isn't happening, and if it is, it's a bad thing
1yr ago
I do not see anybody, anywhere, downplay the importance of vaccines and antibiotics.
RFK supporters I know personally are highly vaccine skeptical and believe in a kind of vaccine/autism link bailey. They do not support vaccinating kids for e.g. measles due to low death rates and are convinced that the only reason kids get so many vaccines is due to the pernicious influence of pharma companies. They are members of Facebook groups of hundreds of people where the consensus view aligns with their beliefs.
sarker
It isn't happening, and if it is, it's a bad thing
1yr ago
From the perspective of the tourist or resident, the first three options are basically the same, right? The building looks traditional and beautiful, and is built with new materials.
Except that in the case of OP's castles, the new construction is made with reinforced concrete rather than wood, which, despite maybe looking the same, must feel rather different.
sarker
It isn't happening, and if it is, it's a bad thing
1yr ago
You're the one that said the schools are "secretly transitioning" kids, like the kid wasn't involved in the process.
Surely it's obvious to you that he meant secret from the parents? It's clearly logically impossible to transition someone secretly from them themselves.
sarker
It isn't happening, and if it is, it's a bad thing
1yr ago
Yes. The way to get a position of influence in an organization is to actually do gruntwork.
You're missing the point. The point is that there's nothing to distinguish this photo from the 150 other photos deleted in those ten minutes except that you feel strongly about this image. There's no indication at all that the process has been abused.
At this point, it seems it is you who has the unfalsifiable belief, namely, that this entirely routine, automated action was actually politically motivated.
sarker
It isn't happening, and if it is, it's a bad thing
1yr ago
How would you be able to tell that the image had licensing information after it was deleted?
That's irrelevant to the question. Your claim is that if the Brooks photo was not deleted and had no licensing information, nobody could tell. The question is, are there any photos on Commons/wiki without licensing information, and are there any copyrighted photos on Commons?
How is that evidence of anything?
How is the fact that the guy who deleted this is running an automated unlicensed image deletion dragnet evidence of anything?
In the same minute that he deleted the Brooks photo, he deleted 18 other unlicensed images. In the ten minute window, he deleted 147 images total. All of them had been without a license for 8 days at that point. He then deleted the category that held images that were tagged as missing a license on July 3.
It's pretty obvious that this is an automated process where images without licensing information are tagged, added to a category, and then in 8 days those without licensing information are automatically garbage collected. I don't see any reason to add epicycles to this.
"When the Brooks mugshot was deleted from Wikipedia, it was the worst day of your life. For krd, it was Tuesday."
sarker
It isn't happening, and if it is, it's a bad thing
1yr ago
You're claiming that the Wikipedia editors are just neutrally applying their internal procedures.
It's crazy that you would say this considering that I acknowledged that there are plenty of rules that can be bent to make things happen. My actual claim is that there isn't evidence that the photo was removed for this reason, and that the actual reason the photo was removed is actually quite unambiguous.
What is a way to disprove yours? Isn't it unfalsifiable?
If you upload the photo to Wikipedia with licensing info and it gets removed, I'll agree that the licensing rule is also abused.
sarker
It isn't happening, and if it is, it's a bad thing
1yr ago
If someone deleted the Charlottesville photo, and kept the mugshot, would you be able to tell that the policy was misapplied? If not, how can you tell that it was applied correctly here?
Yeah, I've never seen an image on Wikipedia without licensing information, and I've never seen an image on Commons that is copyrighted.
And you have evidence no one bothered writing such a section for the mugshot?
Yes, this user regularly does what seem to be (based on the rate and uniformity of log messages) semi-automated deletions of photos without licensing sections, including those illustrating such hot button issues as some kind of "flag map of Embera-Wouanaan", the logo of Sporge-Jorgen, and of course, the accursed demodex mite.
The point of the "Licensing" section is to lay out why the image is allowed for use on Wikipedia/Commons. This can be if the image is freely licensed, or (on Wikipedia) if it's copyrighted but still usable under free use. If there is no "Licensing" section, then the image is subject to deletion. I am not sure what the point of confusion is here.
Do you want to make a bet on how long it will stay up if I reupload the image, and state that it's fair use?
If you upload the image to Wikipedia and state that it's free use (similar to the Charleston example), I do not think it will be removed due to missing licensing info (which is what happened last time). Will it stay up forever and ever? I have no idea.
By the way, it seems that the image was not even deleted manually, but rather by automation.
If someone reversed what's written under which photo, and it remained unquestinedd by other editors, would you be able to tell something is amiss?
I don't understand the question. If there's no license for a photo, it can be deleted per the stated policy. This is a simple, binary question - does the photo include license information?
edit: Now that I look at it, you cannot upload copyrighted images to Commons at all, even if they are fair use (I did mention I'm not an expert on Wikipedia policy). The mugshot was on Commons, so even if it did have a licensing section, it would have been deleted since it's probably non-free. It would need to have been on Wikipedia, which does allow non-freely licensed images, provided, again, that the TPS report is fully filled out.
There is literally no license for the Charlottesville photo.
There is licensing information, hence the section entitled "Licensing" in large print, which is the requirement (see policy linked above).
sarker
It isn't happening, and if it is, it's a bad thing
1yr ago
This image has an extensive licensing section.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Donald_Trump_mug_shot.jpg
sarker
It isn't happening, and if it is, it's a bad thing
1yr ago
I don't understand why you find this hard to believe considering that's plainly the justification written for the deletion. This is not one of the (many) rules that can be bent for fun and profit, this one really is just that simple.
sarker
It isn't happening, and if it is, it's a bad thing
1yr ago
The problem is that it did not include that, and thus it did not have a license attached. Hence, removed for not having a license.
sarker
It isn't happening, and if it is, it's a bad thing
1yr ago
It's not "working" because the trump photo deletion attempt is for "invalid fair use" rather than a lack of a license. That's a totally different argument, and sure, I can believe that it's not always applied in good faith. A license being totally absent is pretty black and white.
sarker
It isn't happening, and if it is, it's a bad thing
1yr ago
Quite the opposite. There's a licensing section that clearly indicates that it's a copyrighted image that's used under fair use.
sarker
It isn't happening, and if it is, it's a bad thing
1yr ago
I'm not an expert on Wikipedia policy, but I would suspect that likelihood of being sued is not a consideration when evaluating if a photo should have a license attached or not.
As far as I can tell, the policy is very simple - photos must have a license. Happy to be corrected if I'm overlooking some policy details here.
sarker
It isn't happening, and if it is, it's a bad thing
1yr ago
It is not generally the case that works of state and local governments are public domain.
State and local governments usually do retain a copyright on their works. 17 USC §105 only places federal documents in the public domain.[11] However, laws and/or court decisions in some states may place their work in the public domain.
Even if the photo in question was in the public domain, it's still required to indicate this on the photo (example). Having no license on a file is not the same as having a PD license on it.
What's old is new again
More options
Context Copy link