@ducheng
It's particularly insideous because I can no longer trust Fediverse applications to provide a neutral social media network. The application authors feel entitled to "speak for me" through their software, whilst using my platform's voice. Completely dishonest.
If the banner said "don't kill kittens", it would still be dishonest, because it would imply to users that the server admin actively holds that believe. Forwarding a statement from WHO implies I read it enough to know, understand, and believe it is good advice.
I will review what WHO has to say, when I want, and I'll post an announcement if I deem it necessary on *my* platform. I trust you to write code, not editorial stances.
And banners are bloody annoying.
@mkljczk @ducheng @torresjrjr This code has been around since June 28 when it was committed: https://github.com/pixelfed/pixelfed/commit/f2fb64ecd4b76a3c3ab406e40baca8947eb41ec2
See lines 64 to 74. The message is hardcoded into pixelfed.
@mkljczk @ducheng @torresjrjr Sure, but this kind of hardcoding really doesn’t bode well for pixelfed in the long run. It would be like hardcoding 9/11 shit into a codebase in 2003
@NEETzsche @mkljczk @ducheng
I had voice my concern ages ago.
https://qoto.org/@torresjrjr/105640058318465539
I also remember writing a draft reply to a toot he promptly deleted, though I can't remember what he said, nor prove that that happened.
🇳🇱
I'd be against this as well, but being optional I would personally give it a pass from a "do i want to host this software" standpoint.
@freemo @torresjrjr @NEETzsche @mkljczk @ducheng
I just visited the WHO site and right now, Dec. 11, 2021, it recommends that people "Keep physical distance of at least 1 metre from others..." to prevent COVID-19 transmission. For a disease that is airborne and nearly as contagious as the measles, and they're telling people that staying one meter away is going to help?
They are responsible for more deaths than those wacko anti-vaxer/antimaskers because people actually believe what WHO says, especially when sites put up official-looking messages that give then cred.
masks have always been exceptionally situational and a lot of the 'science' behind them has been proxied off influenza or garbage (ex. a hospital claiming they did a study that showed they worked, but the study had no control group, but because their outcome matched the WHO narrative all the flaws were handwaved)
most people don't even clean them which means they're just giving each other pneumonia.
@mkljczk @Pat @ducheng @freemo @torresjrjr
Depends on the journal. There are many great journals, some stink. Journals arent about validating conclusions, they just make sure the data and quotes and citations are all valid. Its up to the scientist reading it to evaluate the weight of the study itself based on the content. The journal just assures the reader that there arent bald face lies.
@freemo Yeah but how does one know which ones are robust and which ones are trash? You can’t. Not really. Especially not without reading the content first and not just the abstract. So in the end, most people, including most smart people, make it an issue of trust. In the last decade or so, reason after reason to distrust academia has emerged.
Interesting that starting in 2020, the most extreme demand for trust blasted forth: not only are you required to trust, but you aren’t allowed to question without the right credentials. Comply or lose your job, get ostracized from your friends and family, and basically just see a game over screen. They did this to people with plenty of reason to distrust, and who had guns.
This is a powder keg.
You are right, you need to read the content and understand it and be trained as a scientist to understand it.
Reading abstracts or otherwise being untrained wont help you. Thats my point, the journals are fine, they arent trash, neither are the studies. What is trash is how those studies are abused and misrepresented to sell an agenda.
Even assuming that these academics are all pure of heart, the expectation that you have to either get a doctorate in virology or have no real say what public policy is ultimately going to be is abusively technocratic. When you take on board the reality that academic journals and universities have a long history of being bribed into just conveniently arriving at the "correct" conclusions or having those conclusions guided by ideology even in cases where money isn't involved, and you combine it with government/corporate policy being based directly on those conclusions, you get outright tyranny. You get Stalin shit.
The fundamental issue of distrust, and the issue of that distrust being completely reasonable, is a bit of context that can't be sidestepped with an appeal to theory land. That's why these conversations getting into the weeds about the size of the virus vs the size of the mask holes, or transmissibility of different variants, etc, are a waste of time; because anybody has intellectual and moral license to just casually blow off any of these details as dubious. From an epistemological perspective, the response to COVID-19 has poisoned the well on academic science for years to come, and shouting "ANTI-VAXXER! BLAGGGHHH!" or just carrying on with these in-the-weeds debates like they mean something won't do anything but exacerbate it.
Academic science has been reduced to the same epistemological weight as an opinion column in a tabloid.
@icedquinn @mkljczk @ducheng @Pat @torresjrjr
>academic journals and unis have a long history of being bribed
Do you have an example?
I suspect if he actually means anything legitimate (he has a history of talking nonsense) he is probably thinking of cases where scientist were paid to publish knowingly bad science. An example being that scientist who created the whole vaccines cause autism nonsense.
That said the whole implication that it is commonplace is of course complete nonsense.
Oh you dont mean a study shows it causes it, only that an individual happened to get some sort of brain damage indirectly where a vaccine was implicated. Thats a bit different and not in line with the origina claim.
@freemo @icedquinn @Hyolobrika @NEETzsche @mkljczk @ducheng @torresjrjr
>"don't have the case number on hand. they paid damages though."
I see. A jury of their peers said so.
That's what they mean by "peer reviewed " -- 12 randomly selected people who weren't smart enough to get out of jury duty.
@Pat >That’s what they mean by “peer reviewed “ – 12 randomly selected people who weren’t smart enough to get out of jury duty.
Reminds me of academia. It’s a handful of people who weren’t smart enough to make it in the private sector.
@freemo @icedquinn @Hyolobrika @mkljczk @ducheng @torresjrjr
Not my experience at all. I routinely try to hire experts from academia who have dont impressive work. More often then not they refuse because they arent in it for the money.
@gentooman @icedquinn @Hyolobrika @NEETzsche @mkljczk @ducheng @freemo @Pat @torresjrjr
My last job, it was a running gag to tell this to customers. Never failed to get a smile and a laugh.
@gentooman @icedquinn @Hyolobrika @NEETzsche @mkljczk @ducheng @freemo @Pat @torresjrjr
I didn't realize I was jumping into a long thread. And I can't see myself reading it to see how (in)appropriate what I said was... Lol. I was solely replying to the "internet is a passing fad" post.
Juries used to find the companies liable so they had their own custom court made.
Me and my nearly 20K followers would suggest otherwise... but hey im sure those 10 followers of yours wait to hear what you have to say with baited breath.
@icedquinn @Hyolobrika @NEETzsche @mkljczk @ducheng @Pat @torresjrjr
@duke @icedquinn @Hyolobrika @mkljczk @ducheng @Pat @torresjrjr
Awww how cute, you think you are an adult now... Have fun you two playing make believe.
@icedquinn @Hyolobrika @duke @mkljczk @ducheng @Pat @torresjrjr
@freemo @Hyolobrika @Pat @ducheng @icedquinn @mkljczk @torresjrjr
@freemo You said that, and I’m quoting, “blocking people and exiting the conversation simply means you have no value to bring and that their time is better spent elsewhere.” @duke blocked you. Therefore, you have no value to bring and that his time is better spent elsewhere. Basically, you’re wrong.
So.
You lost this argument, per your own standards. That’s decided. Would you like to retract this claim and issue an apology so that it can’t be used to summarily dismiss your positions in future conversations with prejudice?
@NEETzsche
Having no value to bring is not the same as being wrong. I admit, and dont particularly care, that he perceives me as having no value. To him.
@icedquinn @duke @mkljczk @ducheng @Pat @torresjrjr
@freemo >Having no value to bring is not the same as being wrong. I admit, and dont particularly care, that he perceives me as having no value. To him.
Your statement:
>“blocking people and exiting the conversation simply means you have no value to bring and that their time is better spent elsewhere.”
All respectable users here know that means you’re declaring them wrong outright. You have made a laughingstock of yourself already. All you have to do to extricate yourself from this situation is admit that you were wrong and that you lost the vax debate to us. Instead, you’re doubling down on a 2+2=5-tier non-argument.
Why?
@icedquinn @duke @mkljczk @ducheng @Pat @torresjrjr @ChristiJunior
If you want to be a moron and imply what I said means something other than I said, go for it... talking to you is a waste of my time.. argue whatever nonsense youd like
@icedquinn @ChristiJunior @duke @mkljczk @ducheng @Pat @torresjrjr
its because adjuvants can cause an autoimmune response which in turn attacks the brain.
@Hyolobrika @NEETzsche @mkljczk @ducheng @Pat @torresjrjr