The whole album was supposed to be a play on a pirate radio station if memory serves, and a damn good one at that. Probably my favorite Who album honestly (besides Live at Leeds, of course).
Uhhhh I'd have to take Quadraphenia in any best Who album list...I think I've bought it at least 6 times in like 4 formats and I can still listen to it end-to-end without effort.
These long ads are actually separate tracks, so you can just skip to the end. The pain in the ass aspect comes mostly from the fact that not everyone has the app open in front of them.
yeah, I was thinking about that in my own podcast listening. For me I guess the reason why I don't care as much is I'm always using headphones with controls or in the car where it's a simple steering wheel button press.
The auto playing videos that are not related to the content of the article are, perhaps, the most baffling thing for me. I open an article and watch a video for a minute trying to understand the point - to only then realize that the video is unrelated. What’s the point of this? In most cases I close the website and add it to my blocklist.
Oh I see. My ad blocker seems to block all those video ads pretty effectively!
Even then, why would they not just run video ads in that spot? What is the point of trying to distract the user from the content of the article? Just feels weird to me.
I've mostly seen autoplaying ads on "blog" sites like Forbes and Huffington Post or news websites. These are known as 'content mills' because they either reprint Associated Press/Reuters coverage, or they publish articles from freelance contributors. It's a bottomless pit of generic content.
Front-load every article with an autoplaying video w/ ads, and that can make some decent revenue if your site has a lot of traffic.
And video ads carry much higher per-user prices then display ads. Especially if the whole ad finishes playing or you accidentally click on the ad when trying to close it.
Speaking for myself (as I am pretty healthy). My concern is not about dying as much as it is about developing long Covid and other not fully confirmed potential complications. Saying that, I think at this point in the US we should completely reopen and stop arguing about the measures. I am maximizing my chances of survival and staying healthy by getting vaccinated and wearing a mask. Many people don’t - and that’s their choice that is at this point we should not try to fight. The only thing we should accept is that unvaccinated Covid patients should have a lower priority in hospitals than patients with other conditions.
When you're operating at the level of a government setting policy for an entire country, you're no longer in position to view the world in terms of "personal responsibility". People, as a mass, are a fairly deterministic blob. "Reopening" sends the message that the pandemic is over. If you want to reopen, you need to accept that this will - directly, as a result of your decision - lead to avoidable deaths.
As for the other half of your proposition, I can see why it might seem appealingly logical - why should people who refused vaccination be entitled to medical care? - but I think it's ultimately inhumane. You don't know why they're not vaccinated. Maybe they weren't even offered it. Maybe they were in a disadvantaged life situation - there's a suspicious correlation between economic class and vaccination rate. Maybe they were prevented from getting it by oppressive relatives or partners. Maybe they were just being honestly cautious, and badly misjudged the relative risks. It's not fair to condemn people to death for those things.
I do believe there is away to send a more complete and nuanced message. We can reopen and keep communicating the fact that the disease is still here, people should be careful. I am not sure we really have an alternative. Covid might stay with us forever.
As to your humanitarian point - this can also be addressed with more nuance. A patient can explain that they are coming from a situation where they couldn’t get vaccinated. I don’t think it’s fair to prioritize the treatment of intentionally unvaccinated Covid patients who believe doctors are a part of a worldwide conspiracy. It’s a difficult ethical question - but we have to answer it nonetheless.
Wise response. I wouldn't be surprised if ~20% of any society/state/country is immune compromised in some way, most of those people work across their societies; letting covid run would force them to separate, and eventually end in poverty, this would weaken any society.
What do you expect to happen? 20% of the population will not get vaccinated and will wait for Covid to go away? This is also highly unlikely. Keeping the country closed and divided is adding a lot of stress to the stress we are already under due to the pandemic.
Just a case in point, some regions only have one vaccine type avy e.g. Australia with Astra, my wife would have serious problems with Astra, fortunately we have Pfizer in NZ, there are many many examples like this.
Sure, if they're unvaccinated but still taking precautions to mitigate the spread to others and reduce the hospital workload, I'll certainly have more sympathy for them. How many unvaccinated people do you believe really do this?
?! Most, surely, if they are rational. You seem to be implying the unvaccinated may tend to be careless.
If people delay vaccination in fear of health consequences, of course they will also be extra careful about avoiding contagion.
If people delay vaccination for other sensible, defensible reasons - I cannot guess them. And I do not want to get inside the pit of the "it's all fake" minds. Even today I had to listen to a mate stating that "only the already compromised got killed" - many of "my" dead were very healthy.
There were plenty of people who spoke out against simple precautions at the beginning of the pandemic, before vaccines were available to anyone. So I don't even need to speculate that at least some people do not take precautions while being unvaccinated; I've already seen a lot of it.
Of course in the population you will see the whole range, the bell has two tails:
do not assume there is one tail only.
Remember that one side is louder than the other: do not be fooled scouting by noise. (Nor do commit fallacies of generalization at rights - responsibility is on the individual.)
Anecdote: you tell me? The day before posting that - which already contained other anecdotes - this nice guy went for a takeaway and an unknown fool, the wrong tail of cheeky, started smiling and fake-coughing - owner reported he did that whenever he saw anyone wearing a mask. Is that the end of the pandemic? Because the nice guy saw the same at the early beginning: fake-coughers at the supermarket, mocking those who seemed to want to stay at a distance. She, almost twenty, kept herself coughing smiling and almost adhesive (well, it's nice guy involved, what else can you do) at the counter. The boyfriend went along but while leaving went "Well, on the other hand, when it's full of people...", in a sudden strike of reason. And nice guy looking and the sky thinking, the are so foolish they do not remotely guess that I kept at a distance especially because I had to attend to business, hours before, in the biggest epicenter city of the epidemic. Now: if society thinks that combating and preventing foolery is not a priority...
Yes, probability distributions have two tails, but you can't just assume they're the same size. If you know what the probability distribrution of unvaccinated people is w.r.t. precautionary measures they take, then I'd love to see it. But my bet is that you don't have any actual data on it, and you're just making assumptions.
edit: To be clear, I don't know what the distribution looks like either, but I'm not assuming the average unvaccinated person takes other precautions. I don't think we can confidently say that.
I did not. I am stating: one can not assume that the set of the unvaccinated who take strong precautions against the infection is negligible. As I wrote, it would be irrational: those who are hesitant about the vaccine for health reasons must also be very wary about being infected - plain logic. Many are are hesitant about the vaccine for health reasons, so they must also be very wary about being infected, if not insane.
I would not call what I have made and again follows 'assumptions': positively both tail exist, that is easy to prove (as above. We do not need to prove the other tail, it is evident and loud). I do not know what benefit is brought by drawing proportions. I am not sure what gain we get by assessing the average.
In fact - but this brings us elsewhere -, I am already extremely diffident towards the opinions of the average. I believe by experience that the distribution also of intellectual resources is in general paretian. I start already by believing that Average Joe and Median Jack "will be a mess". But of course, given that, I also insist that the average and median cannot be representative of the whole.
So, for example, calibrating policies on the median would be a Procuste's bed for the healthy part. "Please open your purse Sir, and let me check your items: the median customer is a shoplifter" - I am very wary of this kind of perspective, I have met it instanced many times in my life. This is also in the area of what I meant with «fallacies of generalization at rights».
Why not also put fat people + diabetics at lower priority? Why is someone killing themselves by being 350lbs and having high-fructose corn syrup blood somehow more forgivable than someone waiting for FDA approval?
Yes hospitals in some areas are overwhelmed because of obese people in ICUs. The data clearly shows that obesity is a critical risk factor for ICU admission.
Well, I was responding to the comment about fat people in general, not obese Covid patients.
I don’t think the obesity factor should be taken into account at all.
Re your response: ICUs are overwhelmed because of Covid patients, not because of fat people with non-Covid conditions.
Except there are multiple states out if ICU beds because they tried this. Every person in the hospital with COVID is another person who can't use that bed to get medical treatment.
That sounds like a good start. I hope more hospitals will follow this example.
In general, I think it’s very unhealthy to attempt to take away people’s agency and treat them as children. Don’t want to get vaccinated? Your choice. But there are consequences of this choice and we should make this consequences clear. Other than that - let people do what they want to do.
Like it or not, we live in a society. Our decisions affect everyone else and we can't fully account for externalities. Solving these sorts of tragedies of the commons is exactly what public policy is meant to do.
Personally, I think vaccine mandates need to happen yesterday. People who don't believe in the vaccines can suck it up. Facts don't care about their feelings.
Sorry do you live in the US? Do you really think a vaccine mandate is possible here? People will literally fight that with assault rifles. This situation is already tearing our society apart, there is no way any large scale mandatory vaccination project would succeed.
Vaccine mandates are constitutional in the USA. We just forget our history from time to time. People also misunderstand the meaning of freedom as well.
Doesn’t matter. The best way to guarantee that the final 28% probably won’t get vaccinated is to mandate it. The best way to get the final 28% vaccinated is to fully FDA approve it, get Fauci and Biden to ease up on the vax shaming and then simply expect that 10-15% still won’t do it. You write them off and let the chips fall.
It’s remarkable to me that our government hasn’t figured out that you don’t get people who are already distrustful of the government to magically become trustful of the government by doing the same shit over and over that caused the distrust.
Ya know…I seem to recall a bunch of people once thought that same exact thing about some other people about 60+ years ago. They thought they were better than the others, that the others were inferior, dirty, diseased, and less intelligent. Those powerful folks did all they could to keep the others out of stores, restaurants, front seats of buses, off water fountains, etc. and just kind of hoped those folks they hated and didn’t want in their society would just go away too.
Have you worked out the formula to correctly balance personal and collective risk, computationally? I would not dismiss the matter as trivial - I see it more as Nobel prize worth.
Plenty of gray areas, of course, where the decision is legitimately hard. The Vietnam draft was clearly immoral but was the World War 2 draft just? I'm really not sure.
Vaccine mandates are nowhere close to that, though—the individual risk is virtually nonexistent while the collective risk is massive. The general problem does not need to be solved fully for us to move forward with public policy in clear-cut cases.
In the specific case, you write about a «virtually nonexistent individual risk» while many¹ are yet to find such reassurance. If that statement were evidently true, one would agree with your conclusion save some details.
¹(including the brightest people I know - statement disincorporated from the above since anecdotal)
Those people are much less bright than you think they are.
There are zero people in my own social circles who didn't get vaccinated the moment they could (some live in countries where they still don't have access to vaccines). The difference might be that my social circle is mostly queer people like myself, and we know how bad pandemics can be.
Again, I have very little sympathy for anti-vax people. The correct thing to do for society as a whole is to follow New York's and San Francisco's lead and exclude them from public life until they get vaccinated. Public policy can't be based on fringe pseudoscience.
I believe may still be a good idea for me to disambiguate and rephrase:
the set of population I mentioned would not agree with your statement «virtually nonexistent individual risk». They may have taken the vaccine, but e.g. would consider it a non-easy choice to decide whether their infant children should be vaccinated (with Pfz/Mod/OAZ/JnJ) - whether the health risk for a child is higher (and how much) after infection vs after vaccine. (I insist: there's no limit towards the top, but they are the smartest I know.)
In fact, by the way, to help solving these theoretical doubts, the source of the damages should be properly defined. I am not informed of a clear, reliable, strong theory about the cause of damages in either (vaccine vs infection) - I have seen different ideas.
I do not know the NY and SF measures, but in general yes, if the unvaccinated represent a somehow higher risk of contagion they should remain proportionally isolated. But not even this proportion of risk seems to me well defined. Recently I found an article stating "The transmission rate for the vaccinated is 30% the normal". That value was the n-th of many other found in these months (and of course, that very statement is sketchy). But only yesterday I met an article that complicated the matter (and the numbers) for a(/the) dominant strain.
Surely, I find it perverse that ideas are spread like: "Health care is part of the social package, so you do as we impose". At this stage, it makes more sense to go along the lines "If you want to drink soda, you will not be treated for diabetes" (example is stretched) - one's freedom of judgement is respected, and there is no weird blackmailing based on terms and conditions imposed. I much prefer the other idea of "Non-vaccinated shall compensate the proportional part (95%?) of the cost of the treatments".
You give the idea of mixing different sets, with «anti-vax people» and «fringe pseudoscience»: you seem to be focussing on the unreasonable positions, disregarding reasonable doubts. Again: you wrote of «virtually nonexistent individual risk», and it that were evident, the set of the reasonable doubts would not exist. Especially as people receive information of adverse events post-vaccine, they have all right to demand clarity on the scope and measure, what and how much - the opposite would be irrational. And this has nothing to do with pseudoscience - on the contrary.
Not doing any discrimination at all is a genuinely absurd position to hold. Discrimination is a necessary part of life without which society would collapse.
The question always is on which bases discrimination is good and on which bases it is bad. Discrimination based on race, ethnicity, gender, nationality, and other inherent characteristics of people is generally bad. Discrimination based on things like vaccination status is good.
Any human response that can be considered evil by simply who it is applied to…is an evil response all the time. People may justify that evil by their feeling they have the “correct” moral stance, but it’s still evil and shitty to the target group. Personally, I am not willing to participate in an intentional evil to any group even if I disagree with them r are different from them. If that makes me immoral, so be it.
It's pretty simple yeah, you start withdrawing funds and federal services from people that don't get vaccinated. If there's one thing you can get from US history it's that money rules, and this approach does work historically.
Now I don't know that they should be implemented, and there would be some unrest, but it would end up working.
Yes, I live in the US. The way I think vaccine mandates can be done here is for every workplace, business and school to require them. Hopefully the upcoming approval of the Pfizer vaccine should unblock more of this.
At what level do you think this would be enforced? Federal? Completely unenforceable unless you want to involve the military domestically. State level? Obviously half of the States are not going to do that. City level? Again, completely pointless.
Also, many business owners are antivaxx, why would they participate in this?
Federal funds should be withheld from states and cities until they impose mandates (this is the traditional way the feds have exercised control over states and cities). Businesses which refuse to implement them should have their lines of credit frozen or their permits revoked. Owning a business open to the public is a privilege, not a right.
There needs to be an all-out effort. The US did far more during WW2.
So, for example, all federal funds should be withheld from Florida until they introduce and enforce statewide vaccination? And we are going to do that with booster shots as well?
Can you find any source which suggests that vaccine mandates are the reason for the shortage of nurses in Oregon? The first 5 results on Google for “Oregon Nurse shortage”, which are mostly from April-May, list workplace stresses and at-risk family members as reasons for the exodus.
Some articles are as old as December, which is before the vaccine was even available, let alone mandated
This is a new policy brown is enacting against the wishes of the Nurses union. There is no data yet, I'm just extrapolating based on the fact that these new requirements will cause some nurses to quit rather than be vaccinated, which will directly reduce the number of ICU beds while not contributing meaningfully to the % vaccinated.
If we are only to rely on already collected empirical data to make decisions or form opinions we would never be able to hold an opinion when it matters most... before
Without vaccination mandates you run the risk of an epidemic amongst nurses which can knock out 40% of your ICU beds at once. That's why nurses have to be vaccinated against dozens of illnesses.
These nurses have been unvaccinated for more than a year while in proximity with those with COVID-19. Exactly when are 40% of the nurses going to be knocked out in this model?
And IMO it would be better the faster they all give it to each other. The longer it circulates between the non-vaccinated, who are interacting with the vaccinated, the likelier a variant arises that isn't affected by the vaccinations.
We don't want vaccinated people constantly catching covid, even if right now the symptoms are mild or nil 99.9% of the time.
"My concern is not about dying as much as it is about developing long Covid and other not fully confirmed potential complications."
You and most people who are skeptical about the coronavirus vaccines share the exact same concern. But it sounds like you want them to be institutionally deprioritized because of theirs.
That’s not directly comparable. Antivaxx concern is not rooted in science or statistics. It’s rooted in conspiracy theories and anti-science.
In a similar way you could argue that questioning the last election is the same as worrying about the destructive rise of far-right rhetoric because both are rooted in the concern for our society. And therefore we should not institutionally ignore those who doubt the legitimacy of the election.
“Both sides” argument is not valid just because there are many people on both sides.
With «antivaxx concern.... rooted in» are you talking about Pfizer/Moderna/OAZ/JnJ or are you talking in general?
Because if you mean current concerns, and you have the «science and statistics» that debunk such concern, do provide it. Because a lot of hesitants are there, following anecdotal evidence in their close circle and more of post-vaccine damage¹, and data that does not allow for proper computation of risks², and, to say it all, a public rhetoric that does not help owing to oversimplification.
Statistically, I only found data about passive monitoring - it may partially somehow set the minimum expected, but they are easily underestimations. Active monitoring, I have not found anything (I also had raised a thread here for the hunt, at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28034269).
But if you have the credible data, share it - do not assume it is out in the billboards.
¹(what the, in the past 24 hours alone I read on the papers of a local athlete hit with miocarditis, then in a phone call with a friend was told of an acquaintance of his with odd dire damages, and again I read on the papers of a second athlete with miocarditis. This is not aproblematic: this goes rightfully on the table of notions to be dealt with. And beyond the close circle and the credible sources, there are people who wrote around about having been hit by a meteorite a little after the inoculation - less reliable, but more consolidating the presence of the issue than not.)
²Not too many hours ago a divulgative article appeared here on the probability of long covid as "post 12 weeks symptoms": it mentioned three studies, publishing a conservative 2.3% chance, a well-considered 14%, and a broadly encompassing 40%. And one can compute risks reliably with this? And these generic "adverse events" did not even discriminate "nuisance vs impactive vs impairing"!
Yes, because one thing is true as shown by scientific evidence and the other is not.
It is really really important that public policy is based on scientific and other sorts of evidence. This is why the initial refusal of the CDC to back masks was so bad—it wasn't based on the evidence.
If obesity is a contributing problem, I wonder if there could be a non-vaccine solution to obesity? Hmm, maybe it has something to do with the quantity and type of calories consumed.
People are free to eat themselves into metabolic destruction just as people are free to partake or not partake in the emergency use authorization vaccine experiments.
People are free to partake or not partake… no one is forcing people to get vaccinated, there is always an alternative. A restaurant is requiring patrons to be vaccinated? Don’t go there if you are not. Your job is requiring prove of vaccination? Quit the job.
Yes technically you are correct, but COVID does not care about technical definition of obesity. Obese is a very general term, borderline obese/overweight person with otherwise healthy body has much better chances than someone with morbid obesity or diabetes or heart/vascular condition.
Sure, I agree that obesity is not a great indicator. I just used it to illustrate that an unhealthy population can be very large. Another example: 6.5% of Americans are morbidly obese, which I would guess can have an effect on the severity of Covid symptoms. That’s already 20 million people. And that’s just one factor. How many people have heart problems, lung problems, etc?
Yes, it's still a big part of the population. I think getting vaccinated makes a lot of sense in that group, but of course even there, it has to be informed personal decision.
This hate for smart contracts on HN is puzzling to me.
The hacker didn’t buy a chocolate bar for $0.50, he deliberately exploited a bug and took money that does not belong to him.
Yes, someone actually deployed buggy code, what an absolutely crazy idea!
What is the difference between a "bug" and use of a contract that differs from the creators intent? If intent is the determining factor for digital contracts then there is no point in digital contracts because intent can only be adjudicated by courts.
What’s the difference between a bug in a smart contract and a bug in an online banking application? The fact that the contract’s code is public, immutable, distributed doesn’t make it ok to hack it and steal money.
Bank problems are adjudicated by courts. You are suggesting that crypto contracts where usage is contrary to intent, not be adjudicated on chain. Then what is the point of on-chain contracts?
The whole point of the on-chain contract is that if the chain permits the action that action is permissible regardless of the contract creators mystical intent.
I have been the victim of a bank error to the tune of $17,100 dollars in their favor. They mistook a $1,900 check for $19,000. Still gave the recipient $1,900 but withdrew $17,100 from my account. When the obvious error was found, they said "tough, sue us". I did and prevailed, the litigation cost ~$6,000 that was not recoverable.
Why is the contract creator’s intent mystical to you? It’s very clear both from the content of the contract and from the explicit (known) description of the feature.
In this sense, if my Python code has a bug, does it make the intent of it mystical to you (otherwise a perfectly readable, clean code)?
Not everyone in the crypto space subscribes to the absolutely purist point of view that you are expressing. Poly network didn’t say that their code is and forever will be bug free, or that any bug in the future should be treated as intended use. Bugs happen - even very costly bugs like in this instance.
What happened to you is completely unfair, the bank should have repaid the entire amount. However, I don’t see how this justifies the opinion that any use (or misuse) of a contract is permissible. Yes the blockchain should confirm valid transactions. Does this somehow mean that it also validates the fact that money has been stolen? In other words, if I steal your private key and transfer crypto from your wallet, is it still theft or is it ok because the blockchain validated the transaction?
I don’t think this is the right question to ask. Browsers can push any number of malware or tracking and then exclaim “can’t you just turn it off?”.
I understand that some users find this feature useful, I just completely disagree with how it was rolled out.
You're assuming this is malware or tracking. I don't think that assumption is warranted. And at least this unasked-for feature is ostensibly pro-user, unlike Firefox's user-hostile additions like the Mr. Robot nonsense.
The trivial non-tracking implementation would be for edge to install the entire database of products and prices to your local device.
Whether that is practical or not depends on just how large the database is. But even if the database were to be too large, it'd still allow us to reduce the question to one of how to download the database incrementally to the device without leaking information, which is a solved problem. (E.g.the Safe Browsing algorithm.)
The trivial non-tracking implementation would be checking if the domain of a requested page matches a certain list of known e-commerce sites. If so, then on load, query the other known e-commerce sites through a proxy to see if there's a cheaper price. No tracking necessary.
That would be both highly non-trivial and non-private.
For the non-trivial part, the approach would be hell to scale to any significant number of e-commerce sites. You can't have the client connect to tens of thousands of sites on a page load. And how do you reliably find the matching product pages on the other sites? It's easy if you can crawl the sites, but extremely hard if you tried to do it with point lookups.
As for the privacy, who operates the proxy? Why is giving them both your IP address and a stream of all commercially interesting web pages you visit not a tracking concern?
People use Edge? I assumed that a majority of users do what I do on a fresh install, and download literally any browser that's not made by Microsoft, and set it as default.
Windows can be very pushy about resetting the default every now and then. One update a year or two ago opened a full-screen ad for an Edge tutorial that could only be skipped by going into the task manager and force closing the process, and even then unset the default browser and added an Edge icon to both the taskbar and desktop. I wouldn't be a surprised if a lot of people have been bulldozed into taking the path of least resistance.
You're talking Windows users. They already either know they're being tracked and don't care, or who don't know they're being tracked. Why would they care about a different browser?
If the browser doesn't work with your ethics of how a browser should operate, then it isn't the browser for you. That's okay. There are other options out there.
Remember that one HTTP header that's always attached to every request every browser makes? User-Agent. Ha ha. Those were the days, when browsers were acting in the interest of their users.
The entire "Edge" browser is opt-in .... as long as you manage to ignore the repeated prompts to install it and set it as default that appear every 3 days....
