We are not morons.
99% of the people getting vaccines do not know how they work, they aren't "smart".
Instead of intelligence they simply have faith in their leaders. Yes, some leaders are often failing their followers, but both sides kinda suck at that.
No, it's not "listen to the scientists". Scientists get corrupted by politics like everyone else. The science is much more equivocal than people think. People aren't reading the science or listening to scientists -- they are listening to their political leaders claims of science.
People have legitimate and reasonable questions. For example, a friend gets stuck in bed for 3 days after a vaccine, which makes them worry. Nobody answers their concerns-- all they get is toxic responses "SHUT THE FUCK UP AND GET A VACCINE MORON".
The CDC makes this clear that instead of such toxic responses calling them morons, you should reply with empathy.
But none of you really listen to the CDC, do you? Just your political Party leaders that tell you to be toxic.
I just had a conversation with somebody refusing to get a vaccine. Yes, it's very frustrating listening to his bad arguments. For example, he's been working with strangers this entire time and hasn't gotten sick, so thinks he's some how protected already.
The reality is that it's just statistics. It's only infected 10 percent of the population. There is no God looking out for you, you aren't especially strong, it's just that most people in your situation wouldn't have gotten sick anyway.
He's an older (late 50s) portly gentleman -- exactly the sort of person who really, really should get a vaccine. But I could do nothing to convince him. And that was frustrating.
But then, I'm sure he was frustrated he couldn't convince me.
Neither of us went all toxic, however
It's quite likely that not enough will get vaccinated to achieve herd immunity, and that's going to cause problems for all us. It'll mean we have to continue to wear masks. It means schools will have to keep testing their students and close temporarily due to outbreaks.
So I'm not particularly happy with all the people avoiding vaccination. But at the same time, I'm still convinced that toxic behavior, such as calling them morons, is not the way forward.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
A good example of the Internet outrage machine. A lot of outrage at people like Juan Williams and Joy Behar for suggesting police fire warning shots. Almost no discussion why this might be a good or bad idea.
What I find most interesting is the Dunning-Krueger effect where people imagine that this is something that hasn't been considered before, as if this was something that the police officer decided on the spur of the moment, rather than something they were trained to do.
Virtually every police officer is instructed and trained so that when somebody is attacking with a knife, that you shoot that person in the center of mass. There's a lot of research on this topic.
2/ Cellebrite is a product designed for law enforcement to forensically scan Androids and iPhones. Recently, they announced that they've added the ability to forensically scan the Signal app.
3/ Signal, as you'll recall, is the famous end-to-end encrypted app -- meaning that nobody in between the ends can intercept your data, not the FBI, not the NSA, and not even Signal itself.
I keep seeing this appear in my timeline. I don't think people understand what Reuters is. It's a news agency. It provides news to professionals. It doesn't provide mass market news.
The customer base is professionals, not the mass market. The mass market willing consumes advertising-driven "clickbait" stories. Professionals are willing to pay a lot more for quality news that isn't agenda drive or clickbait driven.
Well, yes, it's bland vanilla. That's entirely the point. If you want reliable news, rather than ginned up clickbait, then you have to pay for it. Entertainment is cheaper than reliable information.
I have the same questions. Note that I am willing to accept there's good explanations, that there's some law I've missed that explicitly gives them power to do this. It's just that if there isn't, then the FBI's actions are egregious and worthy of outrage.
I deal with sides: law enforcement on one said and cyber anarchists on the other. Law enforcement hates anarchists and see themselves as inherently better, because they believe in following the law.
Except, as it appears here, they didn't. They simply ignored the law, pretending that a search warrant gives them the power to delete files from people's computers. They feel justified in this obvious misreading of the law because their cause is just.
I've boycotted the FSF for 30 years. I'm not sure what new thing that the rest of you have recently discovered that makes you want to boycott them now.
I mean, I do understand. It's the social media pile on effect where a bunch of like minded people get outraged and feel they can successfully bully the FSF into seeing things their way.
I've read letters like the following. It's garbage, indicting Stallman for being nerd, which by definition means he sees things differently. rms-open-letter.github.io
Everyone is laughing at Ted Nugent for saying "why no lockdowns for COVID-18", but people aren't likewise laughing at tech CEOs for saying "we can do X online but not vote?".
The answer is because a small amount of fraud/mistakes are acceptable for X, but not for voting.
Credit card fraud accounts for like 0.5% of all purchases. Imagine if 0.5% of votes where fraudulent. Uber is full of GPS problems (arriving and getting you to the destination), and drivers routinely game the system to get the most profitable riders.
Moreover, the most important part of the voting system is trust -- trust that the system hasn't been hacked either by foreign hackers or the elites who run/administer it. That's vastly easier to demonstrate with a paper trail than the magic of computers.