The data was real the first time. The virus got worse.
I suspect the worry is that it will be similar for the pill. Highly effective now, but less effective for future variants.
Readit Newsrimiform commented on Pfizer’s Covid-19 Pill is 89% Effective in Phase 2/3 Study fdanews.com/articles/2058... · Posted by u/elorant
rimiform commented on Bottles: GUI front end to run Windows software on Linux usebottles.com/... · Posted by u/sph
Ah, because saying that flatpak has more issues than Wine _is_ constructive. It is not even close to being true. Yes, I flew off the handle a bit there, but I'm quite done with the useless snark from some commenters, especially since it's pretty common on this forum regarding certain technologies, and in my eyes, completely unwarranted.
Nowhere in my comment I said Flatpak is perfect and doesn't need more work to be really good, and I certainly didn't resort to hyperbole to discredit the work of other people, that's for sure.
I should probably take a walk and not angrily comment on the Internet, I agree...
I think you're looking for this behaviour? Try using * instead of _ and that's what you'll get. Use two for bold, if you want.
Because it’s a simple matter of recognizing other human beings and respecting their cultural achievements and desires. Just because they don’t exist anymore doesn’t mean they weren’t humans worthy of our empathy.
I hate to use this example, but your argument would also basically say a genocided people is completely unimportant and unworthy of respect, as they no longer exist either.
The person you're disagreeing with agrees with this idea about morality: (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Person-affecting_view). You, on the other hand, (I think) believe something can be bad even if it is not actually bad for anyone.
Case in point: the people who've actually died in said genocide cannot have any feelings about what we do about them, so to consider those feelings would be nonsense (according to the person-affecting view).
Of course, if someone living (such as yourself) cares about this, then it would still make sense to care about it, since the feelings of an actually living person are concerned.
If that’s your line of thought, then why stop at burials? All human culture has little basis in the natural world.
Unless you’re a Nihilist and Darwinist, I assume you think some values are more important than others?
Well, burials only matter if others care about it. Other values, such as "do not harm others", etc., matter even if others don't care about them, because they concern actual suffering of living people.
If you follow Parfit, you choose that the latter kind is the only kind to care about, and so caring about burials for the sake of the one buried would be nonsensical to you.
Well, luckily the people who died fighting in World War 2 cared about their society’s descendants, otherwise why bother fighting and dying? If your future society doesn’t care about you, why risk anything for them?
Don't think they had much choice in the matter, seeing as there was a punishment for defection.
Now how long time is that? Second? Minute? 5 minutes? Hour? Day? Month? Year? Decade? 50 years? Century? Makes one think. Also is there levels of these moral claims?
I reserve all rights to the atoms that make up my body ad infinitum, which means my estate will be able to claim copyright on your descendents for selling work that contains said atoms!
That’s mostly because you live in a society which doesn’t value burials or the afterlife and which worships information, which must be acquired at any cost.
No ancient Egyptian Pharaoh would be happy with being dug up and placed in a glass box in a museum. They didn’t build the pyramids because they were bored or wanted people to visit them as tourist attractions. To the very real human beings of ancient Egypt, becoming an anthropological exhibit would be deeply troubling, a massively negative outcome.
> That’s mostly because you live in a society which doesn’t value burials or the afterlife and which worships information, which must be acquired at any cost.
Even if I was, I'd be dead when it actually came about. The implication of time-travelling morality is an interesting but problematic one. There's no one actually suffering from the act of desecration, since suffering requires one to be alive.
Sure, but you could extrapolate that to some sort of butterfly effect where every action undertaken could be potentially harmful to someone else.
Exactly, and that's why we must do absolutely nothing.
Wait, no, that's exactly what it takes for evil to prevail! Rats, I suppose there's nothing we can do, then.
>In America, I eke out a hack's motion picture wages by winning second prize in a manufactured mystery story contest
Makes me think of how Stephen King wrote some novels as Richard Bachman and then with King's name on them, they sold ten times as many.
Also, allegedly J K Rowling wrote a crime novel as Robert Galbraith which sold only 1500 copies.
There might be the confounding factor of being unlikely to buy a novel you don't know exists. If Rowling releases something under her own name, I'm sure to hear about it, which will surely boost sales.
Although perhaps this was exactly what you meant.
>DER SPIEGEL: But you do save data about your users like the device ID, the phone model, the WhatsApp user name, the phone book and thereby also the numbers of all their contacts, right?
>Cathcart: It’s true that we do have some information about how people use WhatsApp and that we do know, for example, the device ID. We collect this only to secure our services and protect from attacks. When you use WhatsApp and allow access to your phone book, we only see the phone numbers, not the name.
In particular, they have (meta)data regarding specific messages being sent, as evidenced by their approach to curtailing misinformation:
>Cathcart: Messages that are highly forwarded can only be forwarded to one chat since last spring. That led to a drop in 70 percent of these messages. More recently, we are additionally showing you a link to the Google search on those messages, to let you check the facts directly.
I'm not sure how easy it is to figure out whether those 'highly forwarded messages' are all the same, or somehow link them without knowing anything about their content or linking them to information you already know about people. Maybe it's easy and I'm making a mountain out of a molehill, I don't know.