Erik Haugen @ech@qoto.org

@CodeWalker @Jain Your post would be more convincing if you presented an argument

@QasimRashid @CaptMorgan The good captain is not, of course, really playing devil's advocate, but instead refocusing the discussion on the problem that matters. Your OP is just weird, to be honest; I almost always disagree with you about everything but usually your posts are much better than this one!

Killing innocents in war is like the worst thing, whether they're Christian or Muslim. Unfortunately it's also unavoidable, unless you aren't in a war at all. Can anyone point me to some kind of analysis of whether IDF is doing this more than most armies that have been dragged into a war they didn't start?

@EricFielding @RickiTarr 2 chemists walk into a bar. One says "I'll have some H2O." The second says, "I'll have some H2O too". The second chemist died.

@randahl Maybe he'll try this approach in Russia since it seems to be working so well with Iran.

@Colette_Libertine @alice The South has led the way in inclusive language?

@ciggysmokebringer @DeliaChristina @Fishercat yeah I think everyone, deep down, knows there's men and women of every race in the US army that support, and some who don't support, the strikes against Iran. (I mean point remains about tasteless AI more broadly, but still.)

"we never co-signed" - pretty much everyone knows there's no "we" that cosigned, if it's any comfort.

@petergleick Hopefully the Department of the Interior was listening

@petergleick it almost looks like it worked tho

@SaareMartha @petergleick I don't know if the taco thing works anymore

@alanferrier Took our nuclear program years to recover.

@mike @PLOS

@jeffjarvis I heard about it a bunch in various media. What would you expect to happen?

@clive I agree with have a disjointed sense of personal risk (sharks etc), but disagree that these charts have anything to do with it.

1) It makes a lot of sense for various reasons to search for [cancer] or [suicide], probably not as much [heart disease]. Instead, people would search for things like [lower cholesterol] – was that lumped in those tiny blue bars up there?

2) Some causes of death are more newsworthy than others, and rightly so. 30–40% of people dying from cancer has kinda just been the way it is for many decades. Everyone knows cancer is bad; there's going to be some news coverage of shifts in frequency or new treatments and preventative measures, but what else would you expect to be in the news?

I don't get this idea that we should be collectively wringing our hands about things in proportion to death risk. e.g. of course I want to spend more time in political debates talking about terrorism or homicide than I do about diabetes; that's obvious, right?

FWIW I spend time roughly proportional to the leftmost chart on each cause when talking to my doctor.

@CppGuy @clive the fact that pneumonia is counted separately from lower respiratory is another red flag. (It's really hard/impossible to make a meaningful and coherent chart of this.)

@brunoleuschner @randahl @_elena as noted by others it's on peertube (specifically elenarossini.com, which is a related and important point) But I wonder – if one believes in this message, why not link people there instead of YT? Doing so would have thrown people right into the deep end, so to speak.

@randahl @Crovanian one observation, if it helps resolve this cognitive dissonance for y'all, is that isn't algorithms per se that you should be against. Instead, demand algorithms that you control and understand, rather than ones that make Facebook money.

https://www.techdirt.com/2019/08/28/protocols-not-platforms-technological-approach-to-free-speech/ <-- this is the way. not sure where this aversion to algorithms came from in the first place.

worth noting: https://mastodon.social/explore has an algorithm. just sayin'

@captainrob you think he is really that stupid? I seriously doubt it, but ok