General > General Technical Chat
Dilbert loses newspapers, publishers, distributor, and possibly its website
<< < (160/222) > >>
wilfred:

--- Quote from: EEVblog on March 15, 2023, 06:03:04 am ---
--- Quote from: wilfred on March 15, 2023, 03:16:40 am ---If calculating the risk of financial blowback and then lighting the fuse to gain notoriety for his own financial benefit on Local.com in which he has an interest is "not taking the free money"  then what is?
--- End quote ---

"not taking the free money" is:
1) Not using the new Twitter Subscription feature when you have nearly 1M followers
2) Not getting control of the Dilbert website or starting a new one to offer paid subcriptions there
3) Not using other popular platforms for paid content like Substack for example

Doesn't sound like he's even considering it. That's not even thinking about picking up free money.

--- End quote ---

I went and looked up what Substak is. It says on the front page "Substack lets independent writers and podcasters publish directly to their audience and get paid through subscriptions."

Isn't that what he is doing on Local? I went there and looked at his "coffee with scott adams " intro video where he says straight up he is moving away from the big tech platforms to get away from censorship and making his content available through subscription.

He can use whatever URL he chooses but if he is selling subscription content on Local, then for you to claim he doesn't do it on the three platforms you mentioned hardly sounds convincing.
Nominal Animal:

--- Quote from: Buriedcode on March 14, 2023, 07:09:40 pm ---
--- Quote from: Zero999 on March 13, 2023, 10:01:11 pm ---
--- Quote from: Buriedcode on March 13, 2023, 08:37:33 pm ---
--- Quote from: james_s on March 13, 2023, 04:53:06 pm ---The more times a theory holds up to being tested, the more confident we can be that the theory is truth, but it's never really 100% proven. Science encourages continuous testing and questioning of everything, and occasionally things long believed to be true turn out to be incorrect.

--- End quote ---

Just to add, often people will constantly raise the bar for "proof" if they don't believe in a finding, or lower the bar to ridiculousness if they want something to be true.  Because you cannot really prove a negative, cognitive bias skews peoples views on what constitutes evidence so if a study is negative - it just wasn't precise enough, or wasn't large enough.  If its positive - no matter how small or poorly designed - it must prove my theory right!   Case in point the whole silly hydroxychloroquine/ivermectin debacle - where people are still quoting obviously fake studies.
--- End quote ---
Face masks are another one. The evidence now points in the direction they're completely ineffective, yet many still hold onto bad studies which state otherwise. Heck I was one of those who thought they were effective, yet my opinion has changed, in light of new evidence.
--- End quote ---

The evidence doesn't point in that direction at all.  Sources?

--- End quote ---
The evidence definitely points in that direction, see DOI: 10.1111/jebm.12424.  Specifically, cloth and surgical masks are ineffective in stopping SARS-Cov-2 transmission.  (This is a meta-analysis, combining the results of 12 studies, only one of which showed any benefit from cloth or surgical masks.)

Edit:  It was pointed to me in a PM that I am be mischaracterising the conclusions of that study.  True; their results were summarized as "Fourteen studies were included in this study. One preclinical and 1 observational cohort clinical study found significant benefit of masks in limiting SARS-CoV-2 transmission. Eleven RCTs in a meta-analysis studying other respiratory illnesses found no significant benefit of masks (±hand hygiene) for influenza-like-illness symptoms nor laboratory confirmed viruses. One RCT found a significant benefit of surgical masks compared with cloth masks." with their conclusions (which sound odd to me, more like someone wishing for more research funding), "There is limited available preclinical and clinical evidence for face mask benefit in SARS-CoV-2. RCT evidence for other respiratory viral illnesses shows no significant benefit of masks in limiting transmission but is of poor quality and not SARS-CoV-2 specific. There is an urgent need for evidence from randomized controlled trials to investigate the efficacy of surgical and cloth masks on transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and user reported outcomes such as comfort and compliance."

Addendum: One of the most cited articles on the efficacy of cloth and surgical masks wrt. seasonal influenza, including coronaviruses but not explicitly SARS-CoV-2 (because the article is from 2011), DOI: 10.1093/infdis/jir238 (cited 72 times), showed that cloth and surgical masks are rather inefficient in preventing transmission; that basically, N95 (FFP2 in Europe) and eye protection is needed to prevent transmission of such viruses.  It is a clearly written article, so I do recommend everyone interested in the subject read it.

In any case, regardless of the two studies above, looking at e.g. NIH PubMed for 'sars-cov-2' and 'mask', the conclusions are best summarized as being from "face masks could help reduce transmissions" to "there is very little evidence to support that face masks reduce SARS-CoV-2 transmission".  But again, do feel free to check.

My point is that what evidence there is, points that cloth and surgical masks have not shown to be effective, only inconclusive or having little to no effect; whereas consistent hand hygiene (in earlier studies), N95/FFP2 masks when correctly worn and eye protection, do seem to provide significant protection.  (But seeing how the majority cannot even seem to be able to correctly wear surgical masks, widespread correct use of N95/FFP2 masks is unrealistic.)
Siwastaja:

--- Quote from: m k on March 14, 2023, 10:32:41 am ---One could argue that community moderation is also cancel.

--- End quote ---

That sort of "cancel" has always occurred and always will, part of being a human. "There's the door", "you are not welcome at our club".

However, what is meant by "cancel culture" is (semi-)organized large-scale appeal to others, by using means such as threats. "Make X not welcome at your club, or else we will use this same extortion tactic against you because someone always gives us way because we have power".

That's a big difference.

However, I don't think cancel culture could be fought against by concentrating on the cancel mob. They are beyond salvation, and finally, they have freedom of speech, too. The solution is to stop giving way to the extortion tactics. For example, trust your employees and your own set of rules and don't fire them only because someone asked you to. The actual dirty work is always done by people who do not support the cancel mob or cancel culture, out of stupidity, laziness, fear, or combination thereof. This is the problem.
Nominal Animal:

--- Quote from: tooki on March 14, 2023, 06:39:22 pm ---I, too, am perplexed at the “discuss ‘cancel culture’ and ‘wokeness’ without discussing politics” decree, as they’re completely political terms (at least nowadays, if there even was ever a time when they weren’t). It’s as preposterous as saying “discuss racism without mentioning race”.

--- End quote ---
I find this extremely interesting, because I do not see 'cancel culture' or 'wokeness' as political, but purely social or sociological concepts (used to further specific political goals, but those political goals varying across time); and I see racism emerging from in-group/out-group preferences, based on phenotypes (observable characteristics), without any inherent connection to race, only to phenotypes.

I understand that may sound like quibbling, but I'm being precise and literal here; ignore any apparent subtext, because none is intended.

(The emphasis on phenotypes is important, because it involves cultural and behavioural aspects.  For example, those working outdoors will have facial tans, separating them from the nobility that does not do so.  Even though they were of exactly the same race, this difference provides a phenotypical basis for behaviour that exactly matches 'racism'.  In Europe, such 'racism' was extremely common for centuries.)

It does really irk me that people do not see that the definition of racism as oppression by majority towards a minority, is complete ideological bullshit, because it does not match any sociological statistics, ever.  As long as humans have had urban societies, they have been ruled by a minority, asserting power over the majority.  That minority, be it pharaohs, kings, nobility, or bankers, have also all considered themselves as better than those they rule over, and have always worried about the "purity of their blood" –– which in my opinion, is a direct analog of "race", in terms of racism or in-group/out-group attitudes.
The entire concept was created as an ideological tool to push class struggle to the forefront of politics!

As to 'cancel culture', I've already pointed out how it performs the same sociological function as shunning has for thousands of years.
Nominal Animal:

--- Quote from: ebastler on March 14, 2023, 09:59:16 pm ---"I question whether a law banning X should exist."
~ "I don't think a law banning X should exist."

--- End quote ---
I vehemently disagree.

The verb question can be understood in either neutral way, "to interrogate, to ask for information", or in a negative way, "to raise/have doubts about".  Neither of them equates to an assertion.  Therefore, your approximation is incorrect.

In other words,

"I question whether a law banning X should exist."
~ "I would like to know whether a law banning X should exist." / "I have doubts whether a law banning X should exist."

See?

Edit: In particular, note the interrogative in both interpretations.
Navigation
Message Index
Next page
Previous page
There was an error while thanking
Thanking...

Go to full version
Powered by SMFPacks Advanced Attachments Uploader Mod