"Apple has always had a good reputation in terms of security. But the company has been reluctant to speak publicly and candidly about specific security incidents."
All I get from this is apple probably has absolutely horrid security and just doesn't disclose incidents. A company with nothing to hide doesn't hide things
Prior to April 2020 the diagnostic criteria for a covid death required 0 testing whatsoever. Combine that with financial incentives to record something as covid, and the lack of other income for hospitals as patients wouldn't come for minor things and elective operations were cancelled and you have a perfect storm for bad data
Not going to keep arguing about this, but there are a huge number of different ways we can confirm that our counts are roughly accurate.
There are obvious signals in total excess death counts indicating the number of deaths due to covid, we can do retrospective random testing of early classified covid deaths.
There is no evidence of some systematic conspiracy or anything of the sort. I encourage you to consider that you might be engaging in motivated reasoning.
How can you retrospectively test the people who died prior to April? How can you confirm any of the data that was generated by guesswork?
I'm fairly sure there is no tissue available to test from any of those bodies
The situation was ripe for fraud, and there is no way to prove it didn't happen en masse. Human nature suggests it did happen. The evidence of what caused those deaths is destroyed shortly after the paperwork is filled out. The whole thing is set up in such a manner that suggests inflation of the numbers, and to have no way to counter the claims as all evidence is gone
Yep, and it's a suspect one at best. Personally I wouldn't trust a stastical model from someone who advertises that they own the book "how to lie with statistics" and obviously used it
A comment from a high school math teacher concerning that book (which yes, was commonplace to read even decades ago, even among high school AP students) has stuck with me: "It's definitely possible to lie with statistics, but wait until you see how much you can get away with without them!"
The book "how to lie with statistics" (1954) was written before tags like /s were invented. Referencing "how to lie with statistics" is an indicator that the author is trying to avoid common pitfalls in statistical reasoning.
I own an inherited blue Pelican paperbook copy from my pharmacist grandfather.
Excess deaths doesn't work either. Gun violence has increased everywhere. So have suicides in my region of the world. I don't know who or why this comment got flagged, it doesn't change reality
Excess deaths in a decent model account for other explanatory factors (war, sociopolitical things, etc.) that are not linked to the factor in question (covid-19 here). I'm not suggesting the crude arithmetical number of excess deaths is the key, but that a nuanced estimate of excess deaths in a model that accounts for other significant factors is a far better measure than anything else we have available.
The organization that published these numbers apparently a. Doesn't know how to use certbot and b. Is primarily funded by organizations who are anything but impartial on the subject
From Wikipedia:
IHME receives core grant funding from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation[60] and the state of Washington. The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC); Inter-American Development Bank; Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance; the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute; Kingdom of Saudi Arabia Ministry of Health; Medtronic Philanthropy; and the National Institute on Aging have also contributed funding through project grants and contracts.
Billions of dollars from organizations that have billions invested in selling vaccines
Look into the criticism of organizations such as Gavi.
What about what I said was "conspiracy bs"? These are the organizations that fund the group. They are invested in vaccine sales, and some of them have very questionable ethics. Again from Wikipedia:
"Public-sector workers and academics public health have criticized GAVI, and other global health initiatives (GHIs) with private-sector actors, saying that they have neither the democratic legitimacy nor the capacity to decide on public health agendas. Private donors often find it easier to exert influence through public-private partnerships like GAVI than through the traditional public sector. There is also criticism that staff at GHIs are often recruited directly from elite educational institutions, and have no experience in health care systems, especially those in poorer countries. Some WHO officials have privately criticized GAVI for infringing and weakening the WHO's mandates"
And that is just a small portion of the issues with that organization. GAVI is an organization that promotes sales of the industry's newest vaccines, not promoting vaccination as a whole.
"In 2012, the first MSF "The right shot" report criticized GAVI for focussing on funding expensive new vaccines and neglecting to give children cheap old ones. "Twenty percent of the world’s children aren’t even getting the basic vaccines", MSF's vaccine policy adviser said.[11] MSF criticized the Global Vaccine Action Plan (GVAP), a WHO global collaboration of which GAVI is listed as a leader, as flawed for failing to help those 20%, which is some 19 million children.[28]"
And this is just complaints against one of the organizations.
Conspiracy BS because it cherry picks ideas to support a conclusion.
The implied conclusion is that Covid has been exaggerated to sell vaccines
Cherry picking exapmple: "criticized GAVI for focussing on funding expensive new vaccines and neglecting to give children cheap old ones" Two minutes reading the article on Wiki tells me that the purpose of the organisation is to facilitate access to new vaccines, expensive patented ones. Access to non patented cheap vaccines does not need a group like this.
Hardly worth bothering about, but the question was asked. That is why "conspiracy BS"
Confirmation bias. For this to end up on a site of someone who refers to themselves as any type of scientist is frankly embarrassing. Not a good look for a company blog
Sure, it could be confirmation bias, but I think that's pretty unlikely
I've gone to msn.com thousands of times over the past 8 years when I've had shaky internet
It actually works. Going to other websites doesn't work. Internet is slow or non existent. Then I go to msn.com and internet works again, or much faster
In this case a company which voluntarily uses a service of another company is reconsidering. They are challenging the status quo that everyone has to be on Facebook. That is good in my opinion. They might set an example and be leaders to which others may follow.
But the reasoning is because they consider Facebook to be too open speech wise. The status quo Starbucks is challenging is the value of free speech. They just want people to not be allowed to talk bad about them
I'm guessing microsoft considers the few % of web devs who work on linux and care about edge compatibility somewhat of a priority.... There are literally dozens of them!
My first attempt building a community, feedback encouraged. I'm still working some kinks out