Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Following NetBSD, DragonFlyBSD Now Has "COVID"

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Originally posted by coder View Post
    I agree with that sentiment, but not for the same reasons.


    That's the point. You have to rely on "credentials" of supposed individuals. If you just think about this from a cybersecurity or engineering perspective, this is bad design because:
    • These people might not be who they claim to be -- we cannot verify.
    • Their credentials might be lies or exaggerations -- we cannot verify.
    • Their contributions might be far less substantial than they claim -- we cannot verify.
    • They might have ulterior motives or gone a bit nuts -- we cannot verify.
    • Their claims might seem to make sense to a non-expert, but have obvious flaws or errors that an expert could easily identify.
    • Their claims might even makes sense to fellow experts, but don't pan out when put to the test -- that's why science runs experiments!

    You are operating entirely by trusting what some internet stranger is saying. Science doesn't rely on somebody's reputation, because it's fundamentally unreliable. Even if their identities and credentials are exactly as they say, any large population of practitioners is going to have a few nutters. That's why it's so important to have good data to back up a sound theory, and then try to convince other experts.

    Linux doesn't randomly accept untested patches from an unknown PhD with a nice CV that have only been reviewed by Python programmers who know nothing about OS kernels. No, Linux requires that you test your changes and then they're reviewed by experts in that area. And then, if they are found to break something, they get reverted.

    And don't pretend you just stumbled upon these folks while doing a broad survey of all the latest research. We all know that they get exposure through fringe groups and media outlets with blatant bias. That makes them immediately more suspect than someone with comparable credentials chosen at random.

    I'm not even saying everything they're saying is wrong. I'm just saying that it's a really bad idea for people to try to judge for themselves. For an "educated" person, it's like a Javascript programmer, who knows nothing about kernel development, being asked to review an untested kernel patch. For someone who lacks a college-level science foundation, it's like having a 6-year-old child review that same patch. What these "experts" need to do is convince the majority of other experts.

    To everyone saying "do your own research", I wish I could plop them in the middle of a field with a shed of farm tools and say: "grow your own food". Or, maybe sit them down at a disconnected PC with a stack of software development books and say: "write your own kernel". Expertise matters and institutions matter. To deny that is to deny the very things that enabled humanity to advance to this point.
    Totally agree - the problem is people are mistaking opinions as facts. Well some is the result of: if one doesn't know the subject he tries to rely on the oppnion of an expert who knows the field better. Which is not a bad approach pre se - we are doing this every day. e.g. if you go to a chinese restaurant (not so obvious - chefs cooking skills), to the doctor, .. the laywer, ..etc. The culprit is that now people are not even able to judge if an expert is an real expert or an selfproclaimed expert. ..nobody sane would ask the chinese chef for an opinion on their stent surgery, or the lawyer to prepare chop sui instead of a contract, or his physician to sue some guy on pintrest for copyright infringement. On top of it - if the matter is not very clear - even real experts do contradict them self which fires up the doubt on real experts - "see even they don't know!". The fields are so complex some folks aren't able to know that a medical Doctor in the fields of orthopedic sience might be very unsuitable to be called an expert on immuneresponse mechanisms induced by adenoviruses. IMHO that is the biggest problem - people can't reasonable point out experts...they already need an expert for this.
    Last edited by CochainComplex; 07 July 2021, 04:45 AM.

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by microcode View Post

      Now that is some medical misinformation. If you haven't even read the abstract of any of the more than two dozen randomized controlled trials, many of which were placebo controlled, nor any of the meta-analyses, nor the other three dozen observational controlled trials, cohort studies, etc. then you should not be commenting on this. Furthermore, the way you talk about research is unsophisticated, you clearly have never used research for any practical purpose, and apparently don't know how to look for it.

      You should be ashamed of yourself, speaking with such certainty on something you are so ignorant of; you literally could've Googled it.
      *totally ignores research study that shows that medicine is ineffective mr. ashamed*

      *totally ignores as well that none of medical associations recommend it*

      *totally ignores that process of aproving medicine like vaccine is way more strict then random research paper that can be done on literally anything*

      Yes one study showed it is effective on humans, but author itself said that data he got is low quality and definitly more tests are needed. The one in response to that study was one i linked and it showed on larger group of people that it is ineffective. There is one more study ongoing made by one university and we wait for their results (they test 3 medicines at once in that one).

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by CochainComplex View Post

        That is the reason why you need to have large groups. People are never really isolated and 100% comparable. Just the individual genetics or other circumstances might cause some development of an illness during the study which might have developed the same way without participating in the study. That is why large scale studies are needed.
        Thing is 44000 people participated in that test trial period, and those are results. If pfizer vaccine kills people, chance for that is enormously low and probably lower then random chance you get COVID itself and it kills you.

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by piotrj3 View Post

          Thing is 44000 people participated in that test trial period, and those are results. If pfizer vaccine kills people, chance for that is enormously low and probably lower then random chance you get COVID itself and it kills you.
          I know - btw im vaxed. It was just an argument ..maybe not well lay out but to say that the trial period of all COVID vaccins approved in EU an US are done well from scientific point of view. .

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by piotrj3 View Post
            Yes one study showed it is effective on humans
            You didn't even Google it, why should anyone waste their time addressing you in detail?

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by microcode View Post

              You didn't even Google it, why should anyone waste their time addressing you in detail?
              You didn't even open link of study that shows it is ineffective, why i should anyone bother with you in detail? And actually few people liked my posts and agreed with me, no one so far did with you.

              I did provide references you did not.

              I have more approval then you do from people reading my posts comparing to you.

              Literally I refuse to respond to you anymore, there is no way i can get any constructive thing from you.

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by curfew View Post
                What study suggests that there could even hypothetically be such fatal side effects? You are talking out of your ass.
                What study suggests the covid vaccines are perfectly safe? Cuz they didn't properly test 'em, but anyway... Here you go, i trust CDC is a good enough source for you...

                https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/covid-1...ocarditis.html
                https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019...ocarditis.html

                The blood clots are conspicuously little discussed on the internet according to search engines but I was able to find a pretty decent news article on it at least

                https://www.wsj.com/articles/inside-...ts-11620898201

                Happy?

                Comment


                • #68
                  Funny to see tech specialists talking about first-year biology concepts (and often being wrong).

                  To come back to the real topic:
                  1 - why did they used C for that? A simple shell script would have been far sufficient, given, the little interest of the tool.
                  2 - as I'm no expert, why using "int ac __unused, char **av __unused" as arguments to their main function? I suspect this is mandatory by policy, but see point (1)

                  And to be pedantic (:-) COVID is the DISEASE, the genome itself pertains to SARS-CoV-2 :-)

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by curfew View Post
                    What needs to be made perfectly clear is your credentials for stating your opinions in this kind of absolute manner. Are you just an internet white knight doing the "good deed"? Then GTFO.
                    Biology in high school. How mRNA works has been well understood for half a century now. Any decent introductory biology textbook will explain it. If you don't have one handy, hopefully these suffice:




                    The TL;DR (or DW) is that mRNA is too large to passively diffuse into the nucleus and lacks the necessary structure to be actively transported in. Further, mRNA, being just a nucleic acid, can't do anything on its own. It is just a string of instructions that tells a ribosome to assemble amino acids in a particular order to make a particular protein.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by Gonk View Post
                      The TL;DR (or DW) is that mRNA is too large to passively diffuse into the nucleus and lacks the necessary structure to be actively transported in. Further, mRNA, being just a nucleic acid, can't do anything on its own. It is just a string of instructions that tells a ribosome to assemble amino acids in a particular order to make a particular protein.
                      This is quite funny though : I wonder if we should tell the people who are afraid of mRNA vaccines that our DNA actually contains DNA from past viruses (somewhere between 1 to 8%, which is really significant). While mRNA (vaccines) doesn't modify our DNA, real viruses have actually the possibility to do so.
                      Maybe that will help them understand that they should fear the viruses a little more and the vaccines a little less.
                      Last edited by WeAreDoomed; 09 July 2021, 05:09 AM. Reason: typo

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X