How much time per day dop you spend looking for something to post your disdain about, as compared to how much time you actually focus on solutions? Im just curious
Additionally, just doesn't make sense to install a network that has long fragile potential points of failure (aka attack surface) like fiber cables to replace the network that is or may be shut down by bad actors.
re " how big the niche "technically literate to run their own e-commerce business, but selling on Amazon for other reasons" is,
As the platform matured, the level of technical literacy could decrease over time. e.g. the more technical aspects get abstracted away from the users.
Furthermore, users who are motivated enough would begin to extend their technical reach by means of self education, and/or collaboration with more technical party/(ies).
Unfortunately anybody who spent money attaining low level Bachelors degree goes around repeating that phrase. It's meant to shut down any discussion and signals pedantry.
It's the equivalent of "X is not a reliable source, therefore I reject all claims by X" people use to shut out anything that threatens their perception of reality.
The assumption that “is associated with” is the same as “causes” is also rampant. It’s good to be reminded that causation could flow either way, or that a third thing could be the causative factor.
This is the difference between genetics and molecular biology. In most cases, genetics treats gene function as an abstraction while molecular biology seeks the underlying mechanistic process by which genes and their products function (this is an oversimplification).
There is a long history of discovering genes associated with diseases and then determining the molecular etiology/mechanism of the disease. In the case of autism we often see gene associations which seem fairly obvious- for example genes that encode for the proteins that make neural pathways- but sometimes also other genes which woudln't seem related at all or are more "general" and would affect people in many ways- a motor protein that carries things from one part of the cell to another- can be associated but it's challenging to build a true causal model.
From having worked in this field some time, the relationship between a human genotype and their body-level disease phenotype is an extraordinarily complex one, with huge amounts of nonlinear terms. Pretty much the only reasonable way to deal with this right now is to build deep models and feed them enough data to build rich representations with predictive ability. Embeddings and transformers have recently been shown to be remarkably successful in this area.
If it's new then it is irresponsible to call it safe, as there has not been a long enough period since it has been used in people to determine long term effects.
Long-term effects after vaccination start early (during the first hours to weeks, rarely month) and are called like that because they last long. From what I recall there are no adverse effects known that started years after administration of a vaccine.
My lord, by that standard how can you ever justify buying anything? A new car, a new house?
The answer is obvious: this isn't the first time we've created a car, a house or a vaccine. We broadly speaking understand the risk profile. We test extensively on cell lines, on models, on animals and on humans. We know the ways they can hurt us and we test for them.
I don't know how we got to this place of flat out rejection of scientific method and processes. Just because it goes inside you instead of get slapped on the outside or put around you?
I feel like we need a billion dollar prize for anyone who can demonstrate reproducible proof of vaccine dangers.
Simply stating that something is dangerous is easy for anyone to do. There's no skin in the game, no burden of proof, and most frequently no domain expertise.
5 WARNINGS AND PRECAUTIONS
5.1 Management of Acute Allergic Reactions
Appropriate medical treatment used to manage immediate allergic reactions must be immediately available in
the event an acute anaphylactic reaction occurs following administration of COMIRNATY.
5.2 Myocarditis and Pericarditis
Postmarketing data demonstrate increased risks of myocarditis and pericarditis, particularly within 7 days
following the second dose. The observed risk is higher among males under 40 years of age than among females
and older males. The observed risk is highest in males 12 through 17 years of age. Although some cases
required intensive care support, available data from short-term follow-up suggest that most individuals have had
resolution of symptoms with conservative management. Information is not yet available about potential longterm sequelae. The CDC has published considerations related to myocarditis and pericarditis after vaccination,
including for vaccination of individuals with a history of myocarditis or pericarditis
(https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/covid-19/clinical-consideration...).
How can I get in touch with you in regards to this prize?
That's ludicrous, people who are concerned about vaccine safety have the most direct 'skin in the game', as they decide if they agree to being injected some substance mix X, more over the burden of proof certainly isn't on them to prove it's not safe, quite the opposite.
There has not been a long enough period since it has been used in people to determine long term effects.
Given that this study started in 2015… yes, there has. You should make sure to review articles before commenting on them, otherwise you risk inadvertently encouraging the spread of misinformation.
Even Paul Offit said things similar to what other people have been saying in this thread related to serious side effect onset time, but what people didn't realize (or did but ignored for expediency) is that you can't detect rare side effects without giving the vaccine to millions of people in each demographic, not just in total. In the COVID-19 vaccine rollout for example not enough people in the myocarditis high risk zone (males from the onset of puberty to 30, approximately, as well as others at lower but still significant risk) for months got vaccinated for months after the EUA was granted, so they only picked up on the issue for real four months later in April 2021, and did not start putting out warnings in full force until May 2021. This probably could have been picked up by taking troponin readings multiple times in the days after each dose in the trials, but after age and sex stratification, the signal may have been weak. The FDA and CDC have hardly corrected to the extent I think is needed, and the good changes they made were pretty hushed and weak, such as the language around increased dose spacing in myocarditis high risk zone patents. VRBPAC never was able to do a age and sex stratified risk analysis for the first booster either, let alone the second and third. Paul Offit does not recommend you get any boosters unless you are high risk, including just being old (ask: am I eligible for Paxlovid? If not, don't get any boosters.).
This is why I advise people against the MMR vaccine. It's only been 50 or so years since it was given to everyone. We don't yet know if those first batch of children will suddenly drop dead at the age of 60. And with an average lifespan of 78, that's 18 years lost per person!
That's like one extra child not making it to adulthood per person. Three hundred million deaths! #StopTheMMR
This will work on some spammers but not forever. This is an infinite cat and mouse game.
For better or for worse, "publicizing spammers pain for our pleasure" has a guaranteed effect of shortening the useful lifespan of this tool. Unless of course no spammers ever read that article, OR HN.
> This is the kind of GMO that's generally considered fairly benign
not by me. The rpecautionary principle is not followed in any GM process so invasive.
Even breeding, which is a far less invasive form of genetic manipulation, has caused serious issues. The vast majority of commercial produce has had a lot of its nutrition bred out of it, for example.
These kinds of long arc problems for the consumers of the food are not possible to track over anything but multiple generations (generations of the consumers of the food, not generations of the plants). They become all but impossible to track when the incentives of the systems at play essentially guarantee fuckery with regards to the gathering, interpretation, and dissemination of data that jepordizes profits.
> The [pr]ecautionary principle is not followed in any GM process so invasive.
While that is true, the precautionary principle is also not followed in any other process. It can't be, because the precautionary principle is nothing more than the statement "never do anything, not under any circumstances".
> the PP will always result in the decision to not do something, because you can never be 100% nothing bad will result.
It's worse than that; the precautionary principle will tell you that you can't do [whatever it is], because there might be risks, and it will also tell you that you can't refrain from doing [whatever it is], because there might be risks to that too. It is completely logically incoherent, an intellectual embarrassment.
The only thing that determines what the precautionary principle will tell you to do is what question you choose to ask.
What "happens to them" is that their life is sustained by calories and nutrition they would not otherwise be able to afford.
This kind of GMO is literally (not figuratively!) life-saving technology.
Just like the Haber process enabled fertilizer to be produced cheaply, saving billions of lives. Without it, India would have faced mass-starvation and its population would be half of what it is now.
Now, you may wish to argue that the World has become overpopulated as a consequence, but then the question becomes: How would you reduce the population?
Most people would prefer to elevate societies through sufficient sustenance, comprehensive health-care, and stable governments. This seems to reliably result in negative or zero population growth.
Your view seems to be that it's preferable to starve hundreds of millions to death, leaving the survivors in abject poverty to avoid... what... "meddling with nature"?
No, you misidentify me; I'm not one of those anti-human "the world is overpopulated!! Degrowth!!" People. Better food is good; I just assume someone will fuck up at some point while we're figuring out nutrition and genetic engineering.
Let the hundreds of millions eat what they will; any problems or mistakes with gene-edits that lead to poisoning, carcinogens or insidious malnutrition will be sorted out after a few decades, I'm sure. I just don't want to be the guinea pig, if I can let a hundred million other people do so instead!
Those hordes of hungry mouths are a great laboratory: diverse, far enough away and poor enough they can't take revenge on you if you accidentally poison them, etc.
"Mounting evidence from multiple scientific studies shows that many fruits, vegetables, and grains grown today carry less protein, calcium, phosphorus, iron, riboflavin, and vitamin C than those that were grown decades ago."
"Nutrient decline “is going to leave our bodies with fewer of the components they need to mount defences against chronic diseases—it’s going to undercut the value of food as preventive medicine,” says David R. Montgomery, a professor of geomorphology at the University of Washington in Seattle and co-author with Anne Biklé of What Your Food Ate."
"Even for people who avoid processed foods and prioritise fresh produce, this trend means that “what our grandparents ate was healthier than what we’re eating today,” says Kristie Ebi, an expert in climate change and health at the University of Washington in Seattle."
"Objectives: To evaluate possible changes in USDA nutrient content data for 43 garden crops between 1950 and 1999 and consider their potential causes."
"Results: As a group, the 43 foods show apparent, statistically reliable declines (R < 1) for 6 nutrients (protein, Ca, P, Fe, riboflavin and ascorbic acid) [...] Declines in the medians range from 6% for protein to 38% for riboflavin."
"Conclusions: We suggest that any real declines are generally most easily explained by changes in cultivated varieties between 1950 and 1999, in which there may be trade-offs between yield and nutrient content."
It hasn't actually been shown that it's the strain variation because identical strains (giving wild plants as samples) are shown to have the same declines. There's no known reason, but one decent hypothesis is that the atmosphere is changing and plants are bulking faster due to the increase of CO2. This is something you can demonstrate in a grow tent by venting in CO2.
When plants have higher CO2 they increase the synthesis of carbohydrates, sugars and starches, and they decrease concentrations of protein and nutrients.
This details someone of these details, including references to some of the studies you linked.
Worth noting is that if GMO varieties had stark differences in nutrient content, it would be noted at the time and likely common knowledge by now. It doesn't seem to fill the nutrient gap though, and some varieties have improved nutrition profiles (though not sufficient to close the gap).
I'm not particularly pro-GMO; I think we'd be better off investing more in farming and our food in the first place. There are some things we think should be cheap in life, and food is one. We went from spending our days finding, processing, and eating food to expecting 20lb of potatoes to cost a few dollars, or less than an hour of work. There's something wrong with that picture in my mind. Even if we don't want to be farming in our day-to-day lives, I think this requires a greater investment than we're giving it.
I'd say the same about education. I think it simply costs more and deserves more than we give it, and we pay the price for skimping. Totally different topic, but, we want to have the best things in life for less all the time when maybe we should want to invest correspondingly to its importance. Perhaps farmers (and teachers) should still be some of the most important people in society. In the case of farmers, GMOs might boost yields and they might be a good investment, but they can't actually replace the farmers.
Edit: There is a decent summary from Veritasium on YouTube as well: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yl_K2Ata6XY (This link contains some good sources in the description as well)
The vast majority of commercial produce has had a lot of its nutrition bred out of it, for example.
As far as I am aware, this is very much untrue. Modern agricultural practices have indeed resulted in lower levels of nutrition in many fruits and vegetables—there was a bit of chat about this earlier in the year—but to say it has been “bred out” is not accurate.
I’m no GMO hawk, but it seems entirely feasible that breeding or GMing produce to reduce dependency on various aggressive agricultural techniques offers the possibility of increasing the nutritional content of produce, rather then diminishing it.
It not the organic nutrients (amino acids etc.) that are low as a result of fast growing crops, it the inorganic nutrients that are low, i.e. metals. Faster growth of the plant means less time to absorb from the ground.
I've no idea how that affects hydroponics, but practically none of the food I eat is hydroponic so that is moot.
Imagine if the precautionary principal had to be used for any other technology. We wouldn't have electricity, cell networks, airplanes or antibiotics. It is an impossible standard.
> These kinds of long arc problems for the consumers of the food
You always have to compare with the long arc problems by not making changes... Like the increased nitrogen runoff destroying ecosystems in lakes and oceans, and the reduced yield meaning humans on the margins die of starvation.
How many humans should we kill by starvation to be a little more cautious about deploying this tech?
I have no idea what they mean, but invasibillity has a specific definition, generally not applied to genetics or genomics. While there is a way I could see this term being used in genetics, the way they've used it, the clearly don't understand.
Invasibillity is the tendency for an organism to expand into an environment and out-compete its native flora/fauna. I've got enough training in biology to understand that there are some cases where individual genes, sets of genes, chromosomes, plastids, viroids, etc.. could be considered invasive? Genes move, so it could be framed that way, but its also clearly not what the author means.
My assumption was that they were using the term as it's used in the medical field. A procedure such as a sonogram is noninvasive because it does not penetrate the organism or cause large changes or damage. Surgery is an invasive procedure.
My understanding of the comment is that breeding plants together and selecting for traits is noninvasive while going in and directly modifying the genome through enzymatic means is more invasive. I don't know if this is the correct way to use these terms in this circumstance, but this is my perspective.
