Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | ksk's comments login

The pfizer vaccine also elicits T Cell response/cell mediated immunity. I'm guessing there are a few more studies in the pipeline..


>I'll prognosticate that the close compatriots of the violent insurrectionists who are currently enjoying three hots and a cot courtesy of the US Government will almost certainly engage in more violent acts. Probably fairly soon.

I hear most people on the left support reforming criminals, and finding underlying root-causes. Do you?


>I hear most people on the left support reforming criminals, and finding underlying root-causes. Do you?

I do, for root-causes such as poverty, lack of economic opportunity, lack of education, being victims of racist policies, etc... sure, reform is possible.

When the root causes are massive delusion, indulging in ridiculous conspiracy theories, general resentment that other people want to be treated fairly, cult-of-personality-like worship of a dictator, etc. Then unfortunately the root-cause is ignorance and the problem is unfixable.


>When the root causes are massive delusion, indulging in ridiculous conspiracy theories, general resentment that other people want to be treated fairly, cult-of-personality-like worship of a dictator, etc. Then unfortunately the root-cause is ignorance and the problem is unfixable.

And how do you know all this? You're pretty quick at finding root causes.


>I hear most people on the left support reforming criminals, and finding underlying root-causes. Do you?

I didn't realize that whether people can or can't change was a political, left/right thing.

I'll assume you're asking that question in good faith, just somewhat awkwardly.

It depends on the person and the situation. Wouldn't you agree?


>It depends on the person and the situation. Wouldn't you agree?

Exactly. However people seem reluctant to grant this to Trump supporters. They seem to be always lumped together as evil racists.


>However people seem reluctant to grant this to Trump supporters. They seem to be always lumped together as evil racists.

I find it more than a little ironic that you choose to paint others with a very broad brush while making the claim that those people paint others with a broad brush.

Personally, I try to treat others based on their individual actions. Perhaps you should try it sometime.


100% agree, these social media companies with their fake empathy and double standards are not fooling anyone.


So Obama, Biden, Bush, et. al. should be banned too for all the completely unnecessary wars/drone strikes that killed civilians?? Or is killing civilians sometimes accepted?

This move is entirely political, Twitter should just man up and accept it, instead of insulting our intelligence.


Trump was not banned for his wars/drone strikes that killed civilians (which he increased, BTW: https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/trump-afghanistan-middle-... ).

He was banned for inciting violence using Twitter's platform.

I suppose if Trump ordered unlawful drone killings using Twitter, they also may have banned him for that, but Trump used Twitter to control mobs, not drones.


I will take that link at face value, so Trump is just as bad as Obama? Great, they're both loathsome in my book. Count me in. :)

>He was banned for inciting violence using Twitter's platform.

He supposedly incited people with his rally speech. Besides, I don't think the mob was checking Trumps twitter feed for instructions. The violence seemed premeditated to me.


> When all these people were talking about their contingencies, it was always if and when Trump tells us to. The overriding message I was seeing was, "We're here to do a job, we don't know what that job is yet. When Trump said we're going to go to the Capitol, I guess our job is to go to the Capitol." But then they didn't get any further instructions, so there was a moment of, "Okay, now what? Surely this isn't why Trump called us to DC, we don't get it. This was where he was supposed to unveil the evidence, or arrest the plotters, or reveal that China is behind it." And then none of this happened.

https://www.gq.com/story/man-predicted-capitol-coup-intervie...


Which subreddit got banned for promoting the nonsense Steele dossier, and other ridiculous Trump conspiracies like the pee tape?


Those are at worst unsubstantiated, and contain truth like how Russia interfered in the election and Trump's campaign accepted their help. Totally different than something like "the election was rigged", which was tested and failed in court, but still gets shouted from the rooftops, leading to dangerous outcomes like what we saw in DC.


Wait, are you seriously claiming Trump won because of Russia? Or do you agree that the ridiculous Russia narrative pushed by Dems was total BS?

Here is a nice article on the whole situation:

https://taibbi.substack.com/p/russiagate-is-wmd-times-a-mill...

>Totally different than something like "the election was rigged", which was tested and failed in court, but still gets shouted from the rooftops, leading to dangerous outcomes like what we saw in DC.

Yes, that was untrue, ridiculous, and in the end became dangerous. I'm pointing out the usual hypocrisy on both the left and the right when it comes to their own pet causes.


This article was written clearly before the Mueller report was disseminated to the public, and quotes William Barr's letter of the report which we now Mueller took great exception to. I don't think it's a great resource at this point in time.

Here is my money quote from the report:

> If we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the president clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, however, we are unable to reach that judgment.


Of course there was obstruction from Trump - he has the personality of a mob boss. That doesn't shock me. I'm talking about owning up to the fact that he legitimately won a fair election in 2016.


> are you seriously claiming Trump won because of Russia?

That Russia helped Trump is generally agreed upon. Was it the only factor in his win? Of course not.

But your whataboutism here doesn't hold water. Sure, there are subreddits that commonly exaggerated the truth about the Russia thing. Should they should get banned, since r/donaldtrump got banned for supporting violence? The two issues are so very different. I do not see hypocrisy in this case.


>That Russia helped Trump is generally agreed upon.

It is only agreed upon when you don't talk to people outside of your own echo chamber. In 2016, people were just shocked that so many people could vote for a loathsome person like Trump. Dems were unhappy and looked for someone to blame, except themselves for running such a weak candidate. 2020 was just as fair an election, and Trump got even more votes than 2016.

>Sure, there are subreddits that commonly exaggerated the truth about the Russia thing. Should they should get banned, since r/donaldtrump got banned for supporting violence?

What is the standard? Misinformation is OK? Anyway, I don't think an argument here will change anyone's views. People will eventually realize that the Dems have been conning their supporters for quite a while now.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_interference_in_the_20...

You're telling me this whole entire article is fake?

> What is the standard? https://www.redditinc.com/policies/content-policy


> I’m sure a lot of these employees are trying to do _something_ to try to remove whatever it is that is causing these people to lose all sense of reality.

I guess they were asleep for the past four years. Gotta impress the new boss and get those sweet government contract dollas!


What do government contracts have to do with wanting to try to tackle a problem where millions of people of this country can’t be trusted to personally vet what they read/watch online?

Don’t get me wrong it’s not about taking the right action because what’s right is subjective.

I’m simply saying it’s not surprising that they seem to be wanting to at least TRY something to help the problem.


Perhaps, but I would say what people believe is right is subjective. So should we burn books that we disagreed with? The book burners are TRYING to do something to help in their view.


> millions of people of this country can’t be trusted to personally vet what they read/watch online?

How dare you. This is the epitome of an elitist attitude, isn't it? Reeks of privilege, honestly, and that's not a term I use lightly, considering how abused it is today. You must be so much smarter than all these people, because you agree with the mainstream take on everything. How high status of you! Why, if we had a class system, I'd have to assume that you view yourself as a Brahmin, and these millions as Untouchables who are not fit to make their own decisions about what information they consume.

This is a morally reprehensible attitude. You would turn over people's freedom to corporate gatekeepers and pretend that it's "for their own good". Do you understand what it means to be an apparatchik? By saying things like this, you make it clear that this is the role you're hoping to take on for yourself under the coming totalitarian liberalist system. Do you also inform on your neighbours?

> what’s right is subjective

What an easy way to weasel out of moral accountability. OK, if that's true, then for me and for millions of other people, "what's right" is absolute freedom of speech, extending to online, even when it makes people mad or uncomfortable to have to confront ideas they disagree with.


Please don't cross into personal attack and flamewar, as you did here and upthread (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25690071). We ban accounts that do that.

You have a fair point about elitism here, one that will work much better if you express it thoughtfully and substantively anyhow.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html


>wanting to try to tackle a problem where millions of people of this country can’t be trusted to personally vet what they read/watch online?

Yeah, I don't trust them to do anything remotely competent here. They've happily accepted ad spend from Trump, as-if the past four years were any different. Google is the problem, not the solution. They're an advertising and surveillance company - the last company to be trusted on "vetting" anything. They're entire business model is to get people to click on ads and open their wallet based on "marketing" - which itself is a form of manipulation. For me, Google is at a negative trust level.


Its the usual political BS that comes out of there. We don't need this "political insight" from a surveillance/advertising company that makes money by tricking you into clicking on an ad or convincing you to buy some trinket that some other random company made. Maybe one day, instead of forming these unions they would just quit and stop enabling Google.


But then how would they make six figures for cushy work that leaves room for activism?


Why is that so bad? Shareholders are the owners of the company.


Shareholders are known for optimizing for short-term liquidity or value gain, because even if some shareholders have a long-term view, shorter-term holders can buy in and force their views.

However, in many cases this is in direct conflict with much larger value growth that requires a longer investment term. Or in conflict with valuing greater long-term stability over a quick short-term gain.


Yeah, that's how the game works. Its like democracy - people can and do vote for idiots.

When you accept outside funding in exchange for shares, control gets shared. Honestly, do we really need to debate this?


You are the one who asked why it was bad. Why ask a question if you don't want to know or debate it? Was it purely rhetorical?


No, what I'm saying is not up for debate is the fact that control gets shared when you take someone else's money. Its a known framework in which everyone operates.

Your "shareholders are known for" is simply a BS talking point. Every person who has a 401K is probably a shareholder somewhere. All those hundreds of millions of people value long term stability too. Nintendo is not a penny stock.


It's a different thing to say "I value long term thinking" and acting that way, and rewarding long term thinking. It may be that people are simply too stupid to see that the ship is being hacked up for fuel, and thus they put their faith in the captain doing so.


It’s a common misunderstanding that the only purpose of a company is to make shareholders happy.


It's not a misunderstanding its how companies work. If you make shareholders unhappy you simply risk them leaving. Thats why on average companies do things that make them happy. Oh, also the shareholders pick the board and the board does things for the company. You can see the relationship now?


I know how companies are governed, and it is of course an empirical fact that most large listed American companies are run to maximise stockholder value. But that does not mean that it is the purpose of all, or even most companies. People run companies with a variety of reasons, including things like having fun or making the world a better place. More importantly, companies have moral obligations not only to stock holders, but to the employees, the environment, and the communities they operate in.


You're right - that is a misunderstanding. I think you accidentally replied to the wrong comment seeing as I didn't say or imply that.


>The default state of a human is an agnostic. If you are born and nobody tells you the Good Word, you live your entire life without religion.

There are some interesting arguments that we evolved to become hard-wired for religion. Fear during early evolution was probably the driver for this, all the earthquakes, volcanoes, hurricanes, death by germs etc. We invented religion as a means to explain stuff - the solar cycle, disease, etc, etc. Turns out those explanations were wrong, but our biology is still the same ..


I'm with you there, I believe humans did evolve a capacity for religiosity. I'm pretty sure that a child that grows up on an island however isn't going to spontaneously regenerate the new testament haha.


No but they will believe some form of religion. Christianity and others survived because they were just able to compete against other religions in that area and time period.


> if I take your position that racism in policing doesn't exist, and that the police are treating everyone equally:

Please don't do this. Its obvious OP didn't even remotely mean or say this.

They clearly said that there is some level of racism, not that it doesn't exist at all. Is it the greatest problem facing America? I'd argue its not even in the top 10.


> They clearly said that there is some level of racism, not that it doesn't exist at all. Is it the greatest problem facing America? I'd argue its not even in the top 10.

We can have multiple problems, and we can address them in parallel. We don't have to pretend one problem doesn't exist simply because we run into another.


Of course, why would anyone oppose it. But, we only have limited funds/time/political capital, etc. I think we should give top priority to healthcare/education/jobs/, and use the remaining funds to address other issues.


Thing is they're all tied in together. If you have a class of folks in low socioeconomic standing, leading to criminality, that's costing real dollars - in terms of the legal system, in terms of prisons, in terms of lost income, in terms of healthcare, and jobs. The argument I'm making is they're all the same thing.


true, but let's not put words in peoples mouths.

its bad form


If I did that, it was unintentional. When I noticed how my reply could have been interpreted that way I cleared it up. If I've done so elsewhere please do share, and I'll make the corrections. That's not my intention!


Join us for AI Startup School this June 16-17 in San Francisco!

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: