Twitter and Facebook were urged to label posts around myocarditis as “misleading” and wanted such claims suppressed.
Don't go on Twitter and Facebook. Problem solved.
Readit Newstriceratops commented on Stanford Medicine study shows mRNA-based Covid-19 vaccines can cause myocarditis med.stanford.edu/news/all... · Posted by u/DeusExMachina
Slowly the skeptics and the conspiracy theorists are getting proven correct in this case.
It’s unfortunate it’s taken so long for the hidden truth to come out. It’s also unfortunate they swept this under the rug which just increases people’s suspicion around vaccine safety. I hope they, the establishment, learn from this boondoggle.
The article says "Stanford Medicine investigators have unearthed the biological process by which mRNA-based vaccines for COVID-19 can cause heart damage in some young men and adolescents — and they’ve shown a possible route to reducing its likelihood." That's very different from the headline.
It's pretty well-established by this point that mRNA Covid vaccines caused myocarditis in younger males. They also protected against the significantly higher risk of myocarditis from Covid itself. This second point is conveniently omitted by the "skeptics and conspiracy theorists" when they cry vindication.
triceratops commented on America's betting craze has spread to its news networks newyorker.com/news/the-le... · Posted by u/FinnLobsien
What regulation would you propose? I'm personally against most regulation as well but more transparency (e.g. showing house favored odds) and advertising restrictions don't seem that harmful.
I think regulating too hard here would result in black markets and gamblers becoming more vulnerable to bad actors.
Ban gambling advertising. Ban online gambling. If you want to place a bet, go to a betting shop. If you want to play slots, go to a casino.
Treat gambling like tobacco or alcohol, basically.
triceratops commented on America's betting craze has spread to its news networks newyorker.com/news/the-le... · Posted by u/FinnLobsien
I prefer to gamble on the price of commodities and productive assets. It makes me feel superior to those that bet on a horse.
Wanting to feel superior to others is 90% of the reason people spend money on non-essentials. You're in good company.
triceratops commented on America's betting craze has spread to its news networks newyorker.com/news/the-le... · Posted by u/FinnLobsien
Legalized gambling is one of the biggest gifts for criminals. It's basically money launderers gift to heaven. All you have to explain is how you came up with the amount for a winning bet, rather than having to explain how you came up with the winnings plus how much you lost to the house.
Not that I think it should be outlawed. But I think it makes more sense to not make money laundering a crime, and allow criminals to put the money straight in the bank rather than having to do this dance where we pretend it is going to gambling or houses or whatever and meanwhile legally enriching even further a bunch of people who otherwise are generating far less 'value' for society.
I don't think it's quite that simple to launder ill-gotten money as "gambling winnings". I'm pretty sure I've seen somewhere (maybe a TV show) that legal gambling establishments have to report winnings to the government. So you need someone on the inside to make false reports.
I don't know the IRS's stance on money claimed to have been won in unauthorized, backroom card games.
triceratops commented on America's betting craze has spread to its news networks newyorker.com/news/the-le... · Posted by u/FinnLobsien
Legalized gambling is fine. It takes away a revenue stream from criminals.
Gambling advertising is an awful, terrible, no-good idea. Gambling is a zero-sum activity that doesn't increase productivity or happiness. There's no reason to create demand for it.
Gambling apps, or any kind of online gambling for that matter, is the same. Allowing online gambling is like piping whisky into every alcoholic's home.
Keep all gambling in meatspace. Don't allow it to be advertised.
Can you send a link or explain how this can be done?
As a not super tech savvy parent I find it impossible to keep my son off screens. He always finds a workaround. So I'm a fan of age verification especially after reading The Anxious Generation, despite all the hate it gets from hacker news.
Not OP and I don't claim a cryptographically secure solution. However https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46223051 is as good as the controls around other age-restricted products IRL: alcohol, tobacco, and adult magazines. And it preserves anonymity.
triceratops commented on EFF launches Age Verification Hub eff.org/press/releases/ef... · Posted by u/iamnothere
Are you aware of any age verification systems that do not have this property?
(This includes being robust against law enforcement action, legal or otherwise.)
I have one: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46223051
triceratops commented on The ultra-rich are claiming an increasing share of global wealth lemonde.fr/en/economy/art... · Posted by u/geox
Rich people having too much wealth is not necessarily that bad a thing because most of the investment is in productive companies.
It’s not like they are using their wealth on frivolous consumption. Which means redistribution would only change who controls the investment and not the actual consumption patterns of people. Implication is that poor people will consume the same as before after redistribution with perhaps some extra assets. So nothing materially changes other than some security. Poor people will continue to consume the same as before.
Bigger problem is it’s not so clear that redistribution is necessarily a good thing because I feel the people who made money are more likely to make better decisions on their own companies. I don’t know how companies would fare if for example Amazon were redistributed and run like some public company.
> it’s not so clear that redistribution is necessarily a good thing
It's unclear what you mean by "redistribution".
> I feel the people who made money are more likely to make better decisions on their own companies
The majority of publicly-listed companies aren't majority owned by their founders. They're still focused on profits and being competitive.
Instead of "redistribution" the way you imagine it (central planning), what if it was more like a sovereign wealth fund?
The government owns shares in all companies, like an index fund. It acts like a normal institutional investor. In fact I wouldn't mind contracting out the management of these holdings to a sober company like Vanguard. And dividends from these holdings are used to reduce income taxes. Stop penalizing people for working and earning more.
triceratops commented on The ultra-rich are claiming an increasing share of global wealth lemonde.fr/en/economy/art... · Posted by u/geox
If you take any ancient or not so ancient civilization or kingdom, all the wealth including land and people's lives belonged to king/imperator which was appointed by god or something like that.
Isn't is exactly the same with the system we have now?
The question we have to ask is about 99% of population of peasants who work 8h a day same as they did in Mesopotamia. Do they have a living standard, healthcare, possibility to have social bonds, possibility to retire. Basically all the things to have a life.
If peasants are able to have all this, I really don't care if some King of ours has 20 trillion or 50 bazillion. In money or in gold.
I want a 4h day now.