How do I know that they aren't giving me misinformation about everything else? Being non-white feels like I have to constantly avoid getting gaslighted in the US about my "race".
I think I would be generally suspicious of people who are soliciting your support or affection by telling you most people are out to get you. (You're right that happens a lot here these days.)
Cost isn't the problem. The problem is that there's only two companies in the world with the technical expertise to make these machines, they have a high failure rate, and literally every country on the planet simultaneously demanded new production capacity. I admit, I don't know for certain, but I feel very confident that the tiny number of people with applicable expertise are extremely busy right now.
Is that really supported by empirical trials? A short search online seems to point to that being somewhat disputed. I'm all for contradictory evidence though if you have some I missed.
Yeah sure a screen is emitting light which maybe makes it worse for the eyes to look at in some ways and situations than a paper page, but "looking at light" is almost an oxymoron - isn't that what eyes do?
Eyes usually look at diffusely reflected light, which has a different impact than direct light.
A white reflective surface (whiteboard) in direct sunlight is 1.6cd/cm^2. Consumer monitors are ~300cd/cm^2
(I'm not sure how much bearing this actually has on eye health, this is just to illustrate how looking at a monitor and at a piece of paper is significantly different)
I think there is a unit error here. I believe that sunlight on white paper is about 1.6cd/cm^2, while consumer monitors are about 300cd/m^2 (meter not cm). Essentially, you want the brightness to match the environment.
Your units are wrong. Monitor brightness is measured in square meters not square centimeters. A square centimeter is 10,000 times smaller than a square meter.
Hm, to be honest I find reading a book is direct sunlight quite more challenging than staring at a screen, because the reflected light is quite unbearable.
>A white reflective surface (whiteboard) in direct sunlight is 1.6cd/cm^2. Consumer monitors are ~300cd/cm^2
Why does it hurt my eyes to look outside after a while looking at a screen in a well lit room? (the sun is not directly visible, just buildings, trees and sky)
Because the sun is an enormous sphere of hydrogen-helium plasma with a core that's undergoing fusion just due to gravity. Even indirect sunlight is still a very large amount of light and energy.
I don't mean to sound flippant, but I think sometimes people forget just how insanely energetic stars of all sizes are.
Hey, do you have specific examples of the damage you're concerned about?
I've been reading up about this a lot as it is something that concerns me, but so far most of what I've says that longterm damage is mitigated by taking regular eye breaks (ie, starting at something 20+ feet away every 20 minutes for 20 seconds) & getting enough sleep (giving the eyes time to properly rest). Are these mitigation strategies insufficient?
Does that matter? Running damages your knees. Playing tennis damages your elbow. Throwing a ball damages your shoulder. I do the thing I love while staring at the screen. If it damages my eyes that's the price I pay. I'm not going to stop doing it.
Can you provide evidence of where screens cause damage to eyes? My ophthalmologist shared with me that there is general irritation but we haven't been able to prove that screen times degrade eye sight over time.
Staring at anything too close to your eyes for a long period of time isn't good for them. If you are taking appropriate breaks, my understanding is that screen time is harmless.
I've got the same understanding - I asked my ophthalmologist about it as well because my vision is already quite bad and I'm a computer engineer.
For breaks, she recommended the "20/20/20 rule" - focus your eyes on something at least 20 feet away, for 20 seconds, every 20 minutes of screen usage.
Yes, I've gotten that recommendation as well. Apparently more natural light exposure may also decrease the risk for nearsightedness. Having a window near my computer monitor makes it easy to remember to look outside whenever I'm not actively looking at the screen.
Probably? It's not like screens shoot death rays. It seems very likely that looking closely at patterns within a rectangle has the same effects whether it's made of paper or electronics.
Is it a big difference? If you take the reverse of ray tracing, why would a light beam of given intensity and wavelength act differently on my retina because it was directly transmitted vs reflected?
Backlit screens are brighter than a book under typical indoor lighting conditions. (Although this doesn't really support the original point, because the canonical alternative of going outside is much brighter than anything you do indoors.)
There's always been a strong correlation between near-sightedness and reading books or looking at screens in childhood and early adulthood, and it was assumed for a long time that it was because of what you described (focusing on objects too near), but the latest research suggests something much more interesting is happening.
Children who spend a couple hours per day outside have extremely low rates of near-sightedness, so they think there's something about the eyes being exposed to direct sunlight that's necessary for them to grow properly.
Do screens do damage to your eyes? The article lists some side effects, but I wouldn't consider that any sort of eye damage, and it's certainly not permanent.
What does this do besides drive them to Whatsapp? Indian Nationalist movement grew to the level it is today in part because of the rapid growth of Nationalist whatsapp echo-chambers.
In the end, the reddit admins aren't responsible for moderating whatsapp. Replacing TD moderators isn't a solution to end white nationalism, it's just about policing a forum which consistently flaunts site rules. If those people want to build their own site, with blackjack and hookers, they're more than welcome to. I mean, that's where Voat came from.
Whatever one's personal views, selective enforcement has been used as a stick with which to beat certain groups and should concern everyone, even if–perhaps especially if–you aren't a member of the group being beaten at the moment:
Really tasteless, given the actual number of Indian Hindu nationalists currently physically using sticks to beat and kill Muslims, given how that's the context of the current thread. Those people should be deplatformed and jailed. They hate other people an plan violence against them. Should be a really simple moderation decision and really simple adminisgrative decision to report them and provide their user data to law enforcement.
If anything, the_donald has gotten preferential treatment compared to everyone else. They've routinely broke rules and ignored warnings from admins. If any other subreddit did what they've done it'd be banned instantly. Instead Reddit keeps giving r/T_D leeway because they don't want to seem biased.
Value to whom? Reddit has decided that they do not value the users being deplatfomed. Any value you receive from the platform as a user is a byproduct.
Pool funds for VMs and fire up phpBB or IRC if unhappy with the platforms available.
Gab did that and was summarily attacked by silicon Valley et al., so I guess you would have to build an entirely separate internet infrastructure instead of just opening up shop with phpBB.
>What does this do besides drive them to Whatsapp?
Whatsapp, etc is not nearly as powerful a recruitment tool as a service designed to create communities, like reddit. Not saying it's not a problem (it is obviously), but it's still limiting compared to reddit.
> “We’ve been running a research project over last year, and when someone relatively famous gets no platformed by Facebook or Twitter or YouTube, there's an initial flashpoint, where some of their audience will move with them” Joan Donovan, Data and Society’s platform accountability research lead, told me on the phone, “but generally the falloff is pretty significant and they don’t gain the same amplification power they had prior to the moment they were taken off these bigger platforms.”
> There’s not a ton of research on this, but the work that has been done so far is promising. A study published by researchers at Georgia Tech last year found that banning the platform's most toxic subreddits resulted in less hate speech elsewhere on the site, and especially from the people who were active on those subreddits.
> There are lots of examples of people who have been deplatformed and have seen their power wane. After he lost his Fox News show, Glenn Beck couldn’t sustain his influence—The Blaze reaches only a fraction of the people he used to. Milo Yiannopoulos, the former Breitbart personality, was permanently banned from Twitter for inciting targeted harassment campaigns against actress Leslie Jones, and he resigned from Breitbart over comments he made about pedophilia on a podcast. His general prominence in public discourse has waned ever since.
> What does this do besides drive them to Whatsapp?
The mods of T_D have created a website, thedonald.win, in anticipation of T_D being shut down. Anyone who visits that sub regularly knows that that's "The new T_D"
Which is a good outcome for everyone involved. Reddit wants to contain the blast radius of T/D. T/D wants to be able to post things that aren't considered acceptable on Reddit. People can and should vote with their feet.
Reddit is a public forum, and it wasn't a nice place with T_D on the front page. T_D has mounted a coordinated effort to take over the platform for their needs to the detriment of others.
Reddit admins aren't doing it to stop Trump or his supporters. They are fighting to keep their platform alive for the other 99% who perhaps want to read about knitting and Linux without being called cucks.
I believe this would allow the civilized T_D members to continue having a presence on Reddit. It's for their sake too.
> But according to the Pew Research Center, the number of adults using Facebook plateaued in 2018, and WhatsApp user number decreased: Only 20% of U.S. adults use WhatsApp in 2019, down from 22% in 2018. This is vastly smaller than the 73% who use YouTube, and the 69% who use Facebook. The only social media network that was less popular in the U.S. was Reddit.
Perhaps, but I’d suspect they’re disproportionately concentrated in expat communities - folks who need to communicate with family/friends back home.
It’s not implausible that lots of Americans don’t know someone who uses WhatsApp. I only know one person, and they use it to talk to relatives in South America.
I wonder if any proponents of deplatforming can comment on the parent's point.
edit: why downvote this? I think the parent makes an important point. Is the goal of deplatforming to herd members into their own fortified echo chambers?
I don't think it will be talked about in that way. Especially if this is a bioweapon created in China which accidentally escaped. No one wants the dirty laundry spilled of all the countries who are doing bioweapon research. China is too powerful economically and surely has too much dirt on everyone else to go down alone. So I believe the official position will be that it's either not engineered at all ("inconclusive"), or just an unfortunate accident related to legitimate non-weapon research. Worst case scenario is US, EU, etc. do a little finger wagging that China needs to "stop eating bats" and then it will be let go. Of course, that's just the official/public position.
China is a signatory to the Biological Weapons Convention [1]. The US State Department regularly issues a compliance report about it (and other international agreements). Here [2] is how it summarized China's compliance in August 2019:
"Information indicates that the People’s Republic of China (China) engaged during the reporting period in biological activities with potential dual-use applications, which raises concerns regarding its compliance with the BWC. In addition, the United States does not have sufficient information to determine whether China eliminated its assessed biological warfare (BW) program, as required under Article II of the Convention."
(That's followed by some more details, which you can read about in [2].)
Given this ongoing scrutiny, it would be very surprising if a smoking gun that the PRC has in fact been developing bioweapons were just swept under the rug.
I'm making the assumption that there's a MAD situation here with regards to revealing bioweapon programs. I am assuming every major economy has clandestine bioweapon programs and that every major economy has the dirt on everyone else's bioweapons programs, regardless of treaties. So if the US, or someone else, comes out hard against China for an alleged bioweapon program, then China will release information about US programs. That is why, in my opinion, the media headlines and public positions of the major players will be a polite fiction. The truth may wind up buried in some report somewhere, but it won't make the same kinds of headlines that "kooky bat eating" makes.
One of the issues in treaty monitoring for bioweapons is that so much research is inherently dual-use. The CDC synthesized Spanish flu and infected primates to study why it was so lethal.. they've even tweaked regular strains of flu to make them more lethal, in order to study what genetic factors influence virulence and mortality. There are legitimate, compelling reasons to make even genetically engineered pathogens. Even straight-up engineered bioweapons can be used to study defenses.
Funny, I would have assumed the opposite. Nobody wins a war by releasing a doomsday virus that indiscriminately kills 5% of the world. But they can win battles by temporarily incapacitating an army, with no fear of loss of their own life if the winds blow in the opposite direction.
But the point of a bio weapon is not to kill everyone,just your enemy. So i guess you would want it to be very deadly and not spread to far. And i imagine you would want to primarily take out young healthy people (soldiers) not the eldery and sickly. (I assume)
This virus spreads quickly (check) but has a mortality rate of 2%, mostly the old and already immunocompromised. If that's a bioweapon it's a pretty ineffective one.
If you want to extinct homo sapiens you should probably make a virus that infects everybody and has as little symptoms as possible and then kills them a year later.
We don't know yet if this virus has any long-term consequences. HIV would seem harmless if we estimated its effects after 1 month.
But I don't think bioweapons need to be deadly. If you can make a virus that kills 2% of people but shuts down global trade with your main economic competitor for example - that's quite useful (if you don't care for morality of course).
I'm not persuaded it's human-created, but it's a possibility.
2% so far, it's very early in the lifecycle of this epidemic and most people go days without showing any symptoms.
The mortality rate will rapidly increase as it spreads to areas where it can overwhelm the local infrastructure. Not every country is capable of creating hospitals in 6 days like China, and China has a lot of experience responding to these crises since the Sars days.
We are only a month in, it's too early to really count mortality.
What has this offered to your country? Why doesn't it have it's Amazon or SpaceX? Why is the Linux Foundation here? Why are the salaries in the most unregulated or frontier markets the best in the US and not in Europe?
Mandating a week off for everyone doesn't seem to give the space needed for poorer people to become as wealthy as they might deserve. What can be done?
Agglomeration dynamics, a great higher education system, 300M+ people who share the same language, and a common market go a long way. Cheap finance and government support (defense spending) also help.
If you want to attribute America's economic advantage to hours worked or labor regulations (and yes, they do matter to an extent), you have to be ready to explain why Russia, Mexico, Greece, and Chile aren't also economic powerhouses.
It's not obvious what can be done. Efforts to distribute the wealth (post WW2 style) will most likely lead to capital flight, and you guys have a gargantuan mass media machine devoted to making sure this kind of thing does not happen to begin with. America is experiencing advanced regulatory capture and the solutions were needed decades ago.
My personal conjecture is that you're in for a long period of degradation followed by something violent. Fascism most likely.
Yes, unfortunately. It doesn't help that Americans are culturally unable to process the idea that we are not "the best" even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
Sad, but likely true. It would appear as an observer that facist ideals are on the rise even in the youngest genrrations, but that may be simply me noticing it more.
Those are ridiculous claims. Do you have any evidence do back up your claims that having no minimum number of legal days off is related in any way to prosperity? Proof from almost every other OECD country says no.
