Posts

Comments

Comment by Vanilla_cabs on I read “White Fragility” so you don’t have to (but maybe you should) · 2021-09-10T12:47:39.728Z · LW · GW

But how do you delineate disadvantage? If white parents support their kids so that they succeed at school, are they putting their black classmates at a disadvantage and therefore being racist? It seems consistent with the consequentialist definition you give.

Comment by Vanilla_cabs on I read “White Fragility” so you don’t have to (but maybe you should) · 2021-09-09T11:06:04.268Z · LW · GW

I am quite curious as to whether anything like this (a group of people deciding to hate themselves) has ever happened before in recorded history. Does anybody know?

My grand theory on this is that the various phases we've been going through the last century at least are decided by the power relationship between an elite (political, industrial or both) and the masses. During the cold war, the western elite had to make large concessions to the masses in order to stave off communism. In other words, the competition between capitalism and communism benefitted the arbiter, the masses: wage raises, (un)employment rights, strong unions, positive media representation of the middle class, cultural power, individual rights, etc. Now that the alternative has disappeared, the elites strike back. For that, keeping the masses divided proves extremely efficient. It's striking that most problems that occupy the stage nowadays are divisive, while 40 years ago they were unifying. Demands for global, universal progress have been replaced with inter-sectoral complaints.

TL,DR: Pet theory: this self-hate is fostered by the elite. It's excellent at dividing the general population, and therefore neutralizing any actually relevant political demand/alternative. 1 discussion about UBI is drowned in the middle of 100 discussions about white privilege.

Comment by Vanilla_cabs on I read “White Fragility” so you don’t have to (but maybe you should) · 2021-09-07T20:10:06.820Z · LW · GW

Maybe this is common knoweledge that I'm missing, but I find this review glossing over central points. How is "white supremacy" defined? How about "whiteness"? I cannot imagine the book didn't spend some chapters defining those phenomena and, more importantly, proving their existence and exemplifying them.

We must abandon our pretensions to “individualism” and “objectivity” (two other ostensible pillars of whiteness) and acknowledge instead that we are who we are because we are white, and that what we take to be objective knowledge is actually a peculiarly white perspective.

Pet theory demands we radically change the way we see the world. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Where is it?

Comment by Vanilla_cabs on [Sponsored] Job Hunting in the Modern Economy · 2021-09-01T09:22:04.936Z · LW · GW

Aigent® can feed you real time instructions in exchange for a 20% of your salary.

Already have a job? Let Aigent® use your work to passively train our RPA and Aigent® will pay you a at least 20% of your salary [some restrictions apply]. Exclusive contracts and valuable industries can pay up to 150%.

There'd be so much confidentiality problems...

Comment by Vanilla_cabs on We Live in an Era of Unprecedented World Peace · 2021-08-31T12:05:30.765Z · LW · GW

How much of our societies' low violent death rate is due to birth control? Our modern societies managed the impossible: actually curb birthrates against eons of genetic programming.

Also, our societies are less violent, but they compete for resources, brain power and information control orders of magnitude more than any time before in history. This might be a sign of shifting from one type of war to another.

Comment by Vanilla_cabs on A Small Vacation · 2021-08-30T21:33:20.108Z · LW · GW

The history of European colonization of the Western hemisphere can be summed up in one word: greed.

I don't think that's a fair characterization. Realistically, conquest, pillaging and slave trade predated the US colonization by millenia, and were widespread on every continent. The true uniqueness of Europeans seems to have been universalism, which came from entrenched monotheism. The idea that the same rules (divine rules, and by analogy rules of Nature, social rules) apply everywhere, even where you've never set foot, was universally (ironically) unintuitive and absurd before. So, the Europeans had a knack for sailing seas and making colonies because everywhere was equivalent to them. If the locals did not uphold strict territory boundaries, they saw it as a license to seize land because then by default their (in their heads) universal law applied. I think we can still see this way of thinking in action nowadays specifically in Western geopolitics.

Comment by Vanilla_cabs on We need a new philosophy of progress · 2021-08-24T16:47:43.675Z · LW · GW

I want an accurate vision of the future.

Comment by Vanilla_cabs on We need a new philosophy of progress · 2021-08-24T15:26:37.779Z · LW · GW

If you don't have any precise vision yet, how can you be sure that degrowth is not the best option, or at least a good enough one? I'm 100% behind "We need a new philosophy of progress for the 21st century. [...] One that acknowledges the problems of progress, confronts them directly, and offers solutions." But when you continue with "And one that holds up a positive vision of the future.", it seems to me that you've written the conclusion before starting the research.

Comment by Vanilla_cabs on Better Password Peppering · 2021-08-24T11:56:26.988Z · LW · GW

Well, except that now checking a user's password may take up to 100* time. So you're just trading 100* time for you to check the password against 100* time for the attacker to crack it. What's the difference with just using a more complex hashing method? AFAIK it's the same tradeoff.

Edit: wait, that's only if the peppers are leaked. If cracking a single pepper is the most time-consuming part for the hacker, then this method allows to make that part specifically more difficult. I... guess it works (not a specialist).

Comment by Vanilla_cabs on For God's sake, Google it. · 2021-08-12T17:34:18.246Z · LW · GW

Both your and aaronb50's counterpoints seem reasonable. I think it's obvious that google makes us more knoweledgeable overall. But I also have a general tendency to believe that the first generation to adopt a new technology are the most prone to fall into all sorts of excesses and traps, before the next generation manages to learn from their parent's failures. So my go-to with a new technology is "a cautious emthusiasm". As you suggest in your 3 examples, I think there can be something as "too reliant on google".

Comment by Vanilla_cabs on For God's sake, Google it. · 2021-08-11T06:05:32.688Z · LW · GW

Your brain is like a muscle: if you don't use it you lose it. I'm afraid google is doing to our brains (and memory in particular) what sedentarity is doing to our muscles. Before I google something, I ask these questions:

  • is it important?
  • can I remember it if I try for 2 minutes?

Yesterday I was trying to replay a tune in my head. I couldn't find some part, so I was tempted to youtube it. Then I realized I was starting to build a compulsion to check up everything and anything as soon as I had a shred of doubt. I stopped myself. The tune came back by itself a while later.

Comment by Vanilla_cabs on What do we know about vaccinating children? · 2021-08-05T06:13:36.217Z · LW · GW

How about letting them decide? Eventually they'll have to make decicsions about their body throughout their lives. Each decision is an occasion to learn responsibility, so might as well start early. If that's too scary for them, you can still advise them.

Comment by Vanilla_cabs on Covid 7/15: Rates of Change · 2021-08-02T18:51:46.386Z · LW · GW

Depends on the amount of the fine. But even if it was reasonable, the government of my country would need to produce at least 2 other components to make a credible good will attempt at saving lives:

  1. They should be increasing the number of hospital beds available and hire health professionnals, instead of closing beds as they've been doing throughout the pandemic
  2. They should set boundaries to the duration of the fine, promise not to raise it or lenghten it, and have a credible way of showing they'll keep that promise, or, barring that, a track record of keeping their word. Instead, they have emergency powers, can pass decrees without parliament approval, and have consistently broken their words arguing that "the circumstances have changed"
     
Comment by Vanilla_cabs on Covid 7/15: Rates of Change · 2021-08-02T10:41:47.948Z · LW · GW

And why qualify such a rule to only those occasions when the potential tyrant "does what you want"?

Because nobody needs to be warned not to applaud a potential tyrant who does not do what they want.

The idea is derived both from Superintelligence main metaphor, where sparrows try to raise an owl to solve all their problems, representing AGI without care for alignment, and past human history. In order to solve a problem, one feeds a monster that (quickly) ends up becoming much worse than the initial problem. I remember reading that in conquering the Aztec empire, Cortés took advantage of the resentment that existed between local tribes and the central government ; so did Caesar when he took over the Gaules. In fiction, the novel Brown Morning describes a slippery slope towards tyranny where some fail to react early because they're not concerned or have something to gain. The novel is very naive and simplistic, but short, universal and to the point.

Here I'm reminding that the political actor that OP notes for their efficiency, reaches such 'efficiency' through oppressive measures, lacks the solid legitimacy required to impose such extreme measures, and has an history of playing fast and loose with the tenets of democracy that predates this crisis. That's not a move in isolation, and if you look at the big picture, it's clear that 'public health' or 'saving lives' is not the endgame of these measures. Therefore, supporting those measures would be short-sighted.

Comment by Vanilla_cabs on Covid 7/15: Rates of Change · 2021-07-29T21:59:37.939Z · LW · GW

And it seems arguably reasonable to consider the 'flu vaccine' as 'typical' and that (those) seem to offer even less protection than these.

Which is why when someone wants to impress you with the historical track record of vaccines, the flu vaccine conspicuously remains out of the picture.

What do you mean by this exactly? That the "potential market" possibly includes everyone? That doesn't seem to be that different than for other vaccinations

I guess maybe some other vaccines have a near-worldwide cover. Note that since world population and GDP has always been going up, every new global pandemic creates de facto an unprecedented huge potential market. Though not by much. So, I don't know?

Ok, so at this point maybe we can agree that:

   1/ The COVID vaccine is less efficacious than touted last year, when the population was convinced to wait and expect salvation from it.

But:

   2/ Strangely, 1) does not seem to have led policy/opinion makers to shift their bets on other horses or mellow their speech. Actually, pro-vaccination speakers have greatly radicalized this year, now advocating more and more openly shaming and punishment of unvaccinated people.

That looks something like Evaporative Cooling of Group Beliefs if the cult was so powerful it could punish dissenders. And I'm honestly frightened by that.

Comment by Vanilla_cabs on Covid 7/15: Rates of Change · 2021-07-29T21:00:45.551Z · LW · GW

If a potential tyrant did something like relinquishing power, then by definition they wouldn't be growing.

Edit: Oh, you mean the rule can be generalized, and after doing so seems too general for you? But it is the same rule. If you should applaud a single thing, that'd be something you want. So the implication goes both ways.

Comment by Vanilla_cabs on How much do variations in diet quality determine individual productivity? · 2021-07-28T06:35:42.268Z · LW · GW

If you start consuming no more than zero calories per day, you will get very tired, maybe depressed as well, and you will eventually not be able to get anything done.

While it's true that eventually you won't be able to get anything done, there's actually a phase of fasting when you have an energy rebound due to no energy being spent for digestion. Anecdotally it usually happens between day 3 and day 10 of fasting.

Comment by Vanilla_cabs on A Contamination Theory of the Obesity Epidemic · 2021-07-26T08:22:57.652Z · LW · GW

Fruits have lots of fibers. Fibers both reduce sugar absorption in the guts and slow it down, evening the amount of sugar that gets in the blood stream over time (avoiding peaks that cause mass insulin production followed by a sugar dip when insulin keeps being produced while sugar intake drops, causing sudden fatigue). Fibers also fill the stomach, stretching it which signals satiety. You only get those benefits if you eat the whole fruit. In juices, slushies and the like, the fibers have been cut in small pieces and they effect is significantly reduced.

Comment by Vanilla_cabs on A Contamination Theory of the Obesity Epidemic · 2021-07-25T13:10:34.126Z · LW · GW

It's a long shot, but how about oxygen deficiency? Our cells' mitochondria use oxygen to produce ATP by 'burning' glucose. Could less oxygen mean less energy consumption and therefore more fat storage? All I could find about the evolution of oxygen concentration is on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxygen#Later_history: Oxygen levels in the atmosphere are trending slightly downward globally, possibly because of fossil-fuel burning.

We'd expect altitude to be positively correlated with obesity, though.

Comment by Vanilla_cabs on Progress, Stagnation, & Collapse · 2021-07-23T13:36:05.806Z · LW · GW

It becomes amazing that we make progress at all, when you think of it this way: it's often to the state's advantage to keep the population ignorant and poor.

States are also in competition with each other. A state with more military innovations can invade you. A state with more advanced culture can assimilate you. Your population can defect and move to a state that offers them a better deal.

Comment by Vanilla_cabs on Covid 7/22: Error Correction · 2021-07-23T12:20:20.858Z · LW · GW

How many got killed after the population supported invading Iraq based on Colin Powell's very official little lies that Iraq had WMD and was linked to 9/11? According to Wikipedia:

U.S. military deaths: 4,576

Iraq excess deaths: aournd 500,000 according to Lancet and PLOS Medicine, including at least 100,000 violent deaths

Comment by Vanilla_cabs on Covid 7/15: Rates of Change · 2021-07-20T08:32:03.561Z · LW · GW

Regardless of the general point, I think you're making a noncentral fallacy here. This vaccine differs from the vaccine archetype for multiple reasons: it uses a new, different technology, it was rushed and we have no hindsight on its long-term side effects, it does not offer as strong a protection as expected from a typical vaccine (in particular, not strong enough to eradicate the virus even if it had maximum coverage), it's used at the height of a pandemic with the risk of creating variants through recombination, the potential market has never been this huge, thus increasing the incentive for foul play. This is not a typical get-1-shot-go-carefree-for-10-years vaccine.

Comment by Vanilla_cabs on Preparing for ambition · 2021-07-19T17:15:18.648Z · LW · GW

My bad, I thought stress was helping you achieve your goals in your life. I thought it was making you miserable but efficient.

Comment by Vanilla_cabs on Is the argument that AI is an xrisk valid? · 2021-07-19T15:58:39.434Z · LW · GW

A minor qualm that does not impact your main point. From this quotation of Bostrom:

We can tentatively define a superintelligence as any intellect that greatly exceeds the cognitive performance of humans in virtually all domains of interest

You deduce:

So, the singularity claim assumes a notion of intelligence like the human one, just ‘more’ of it.

That's too narrow of an interpretation. The definition by Bostrom only states that the superintelligence outperforms humans on all intellectual tasks. But its inner workings could be totally different from human reasoning.

Others here will be able to discuss your main point better than me (edit: but I'll have a go at it as a personal challenge). I think the central point is one you mention in passing, the difference between instrumental goals and terminal values. An agent's terminal values should be able to be expressed as a utility function, otherwise these values are incoherent and open to dutch-booking. We humans are incoherent, which is why we often confuse instrumental goals for terminal values, and we need to force ourselves to think rationally otherwise we're vulnerable to dutch-booking. The utility function is absolute: if an agent's utility function is to maximize the number of paperclips, no reasoning about ethics will make them value some instrumental goal over it. I'm not sure whether the agent is totally protected against wireheading though (convincing itself it's fullfilling its values rather than actually doing it).

It'd be nice if we could implement our values as the agent's terminal values. But that turns out to be immensely difficult (look for articles with 'genie' here). Forget the 3 laws of Asimov: the first law alone is irredeemably ambiguous. How far should the agent go to protect human lives? What counts as a human? It might turn out more convenient for the agent to turn mankind into brains in a jar and store them eternally in a bunker for maximum safety.

Comment by Vanilla_cabs on Preparing for ambition · 2021-07-19T07:44:43.867Z · LW · GW

Would you have successfully gotten some gravy if you hadn't felt 'unreasonable' stress? In hindsight, it's easier to notice that you stressed yourself more than was strictly needed, but without hindsight, isn't it better to stress a little more than what seems necessary, and reach your goal, rather than stress the bare minimum and fail because an unexpected hurdle happened?

Comment by Vanilla_cabs on Covid 7/15: Rates of Change · 2021-07-17T06:32:45.539Z · LW · GW

FWIW, strongly upvoted, despite thinking that the term 'anti-vax' perpetuates a false dichitomy that poisons the well.

I am French and the "incentive" OP talks about is blackmail by a president who just got disavowed in elections (https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89lections_r%C3%A9gionales_fran%C3%A7aises_de_2021#Synth%C3%A8se_des_r%C3%A9sultats LREM, the governing party, gets 0,52% of voter's votes on the first round).

I've been writing a piece explaining the background of these "incentives" but since it's a political issue, I don't think it can find a place on LW (see the recent debate on https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/BY5f7iEzHtEDJLXS7/prediction-what-war-between-the-usa-and-china-would-look).

One takeaway should already be obvious to anyone who's concerned with AI alignment or read Superintelligence: don't applaud when a growing potential tyrant does what you want.

Comment by Vanilla_cabs on [Link] Musk's non-missing mood · 2021-07-14T12:02:12.512Z · LW · GW

But it is surprising that life could only appear on our planet, since it doesn't seem to have unique features. If we're alone, that probably means we're just first. If we just blow up ourselves, another sentient species will probably appear someday somewhere else with a chance to not mess up. But an expanding unaligned AI will wipe out all chance of life appearing in the future. That's a big difference.

Comment by Vanilla_cabs on [Link] Musk's non-missing mood · 2021-07-14T08:02:07.206Z · LW · GW

Well, that's just a variation of the Fermi paradox, isn't it? What's strange is that we don't observe any sign of alien sentience, superintelligence or not. I guess, if we're in the zoo hypothesis, then the aliens will probably step in and stop us from developing a rogue AI (anytime now). But I wouldn't pin my hopes for life in the universe on it.

Comment by Vanilla_cabs on [Link] Musk's non-missing mood · 2021-07-13T19:33:50.739Z · LW · GW

And it doesn't expand into the universe to kill every other life.

Comment by Vanilla_cabs on (Brainstem, Neocortex) ≠ (Base Motivations, Honorable Motivations) · 2021-07-12T20:24:24.113Z · LW · GW

I don't know how common or obvious it is, but I noticed music works for me the same way as concepts do in your model. By listening to a song while having an experience arising positive affects, some positive affect is loaded into the song. Then, when I want to do something hard like study or work, listening to the song makes it more doable by tapping into its positive charge. This works for a time, until the song feels 'discharged', and even starts feeling as unpleasant as the hard situation it's now associated with.

Comment by Vanilla_cabs on Rationality Yellow Belt Test Questions? · 2021-07-07T11:11:41.941Z · LW · GW

In the old days, the way you got to be a spy for Her Majesty's Government was to be the "right sort" [...]

The freemasons and other semi-occult organisations also recruit that way.

Comment by Vanilla_cabs on You are allowed to edit Wikipedia · 2021-07-06T07:25:02.108Z · LW · GW

Organisations holding a high amount of power have a natural tendency to become more and more bureaucratic over time. I'm borrowing the concept from Graeber's The Utopia of Rules. The signs of a bureaucracy are the one-way addition of rules over time (rules are only added, very rarely deleted). While maintaining a facade of impartiality, these rules allow the insiders the flexibility to settle whatever way as the moment's incentives require. They act in a way that displaces accountability from the insiders on to the outsiders.

Wikipedia does hold some amount of power, and it looks well on its way towards bureaucratization. The number of editors has been going down, and it's notoriously become more discouraging for newcomers.

I don't think Wikipedia's rules are leaning left. I think Wikipedia's rules are on their way to becoming dense and overlapping enough as to allow insiders to settle whatever way they need to.

Bureaucratic organisations rarely reform. Hopefully they crumble under their own dead weight and are replaced by better ones.

Comment by Vanilla_cabs on You are allowed to edit Wikipedia · 2021-07-05T22:28:25.804Z · LW · GW

That wasn't my complaint. I just pointed that it was waveman's point and Steven Byrnes failed to address it.

Comment by Vanilla_cabs on You are allowed to edit Wikipedia · 2021-07-05T17:06:13.139Z · LW · GW

The amount of people on both sides matters for how conflicts are resolved. If someone else already made an argument adding your position in addition is helpful.

On controversial topics, a few persons arguing can already produce an article's length of points. How can a newcomer weigh in? There is (generally) no vote. You can just add more points. For those points to have a slight chance of being relevant, you need to read all the discussion and the rules referred to. And then someone will point that you forgot a yet-unmentioned-rule, and your words will only add to the noise and make it more difficult for the next one to weigh in.

Comment by Vanilla_cabs on You are allowed to edit Wikipedia · 2021-07-05T16:08:23.181Z · LW · GW

It an openly known fact that mainstream media leans heavily on one side of the political spectrum. This makes it very difficult to find "authoritative" sources that tell a certain side of the story on a lot of topics.

As a habit, when I want to edit a page, I check the talk page. On any topic that the mainstream media touches (not only politics, but also critical reviews of movies, etc.), it is often longer than the article, and riddled with nitpicks and gotchas. I don't want to waste my time on arguing there, and I think that's the intended effect.

Comment by Vanilla_cabs on You are allowed to edit Wikipedia · 2021-07-05T15:57:05.961Z · LW · GW

I'm not sure what you were expecting. There are a gazillion people who think "circumcision" is the obviously correct term, and a gazillion other people who think "genital mutilation" is the obviously correct term. Of course there's going to be an Official Policy on this, settled long long ago, otherwise people would spend all day in endless "edit wars"

Sure, but the point was about the double standard of using "circumcision" for one side an "genital mutilation" for the other  It's ok to have an official policy, but you'd expect it to be justified and consistent.

Comment by Vanilla_cabs on We Still Don't Know If Masks Work · 2021-07-05T08:54:59.568Z · LW · GW

I am wondering: how much protection woudl be/have been lost by 1) making masks mandatory for symptomatic people rather than 2) for everyone?

My current understanding is that masks work by keeping you from spreading virus. If you don't have the virus, wearing a mask is useless. So with 1) the only protection lost would be from asymptomatic people. OTHO, the social and economic costs would be/have been much lower.

Also, could 1) have possibly given a slight selective advantage to more benign variants over harmful ones? Some diseases can be harmful while keeping mostly asomptomatic for a long time, but I don't know if coronaviruses could.

Edit: Thanks for the reply. Here is what I meant for 1) in more detail: set a list of symptoms, like temperature, runny nose, etc., and if someone has any symptom, however mild, they have to wear a mask. This should include any symptomatic person, however pauci-.

Comment by Vanilla_cabs on The homework assignment incentives, and why it's now so extreme · 2021-06-27T07:54:35.013Z · LW · GW

I'm not equating honesty with obedience to authority. An honest person can openly defy orders, by refusing to turn in homework for example. But your methods, outsourcing homework, hacking, calling in sick to avoid workload, require being dishonest with the system, thereby excluding honest persons.

Comment by Vanilla_cabs on The homework assignment incentives, and why it's now so extreme · 2021-06-26T09:03:00.865Z · LW · GW

Doesn't have to be on purpose. If we could see all the ways an education system could fail, we'd see a lot of them fail in ways that favor children of educated parents. That seems like the default mode of failure, whereas failing while favoring children of uneducated parents instinctively feels like it would require more specific circumstances.

Comment by Vanilla_cabs on The homework assignment incentives, and why it's now so extreme · 2021-06-26T08:50:12.036Z · LW · GW

True. The difference is that successfully appealing to the dean goes toward showing that the system has somewhat of a safeguard, while you solutions don't.

Also, the most honest students are the ones who will use your solutions less and keep suffering most, which makes the system (school requirements+your solutions) wicked. (edited for clarity)

Comment by Vanilla_cabs on How can there be a godless moral world ? · 2021-06-21T16:26:08.914Z · LW · GW

I feel like there is objective truth about why killing is bad, but I don't understand why.

I think here lies the crux. If you mean "my feelings tell me there is objective truth about why killing is bad", then the answer is clear: your feelings don't get to decide what is the objective truth. Rationality requires to see the world as it is and not as you wish it were.

Though your wording might just be a way to say "I believe there's an objective truth about why killing is bad, but I'm confused about my reasons for believing that". In that case, we should focus on clearing that confusion, and you're gonna have to help us doing that. Can you name a personal argument for that belief? When did you start believing it? etc.

Comment by Vanilla_cabs on How can there be a godless moral world ? · 2021-06-21T15:28:10.690Z · LW · GW

Just to be sure we're on the same page, by a "moral world" you just mean that the world has a morality system dictated from the upper echelon (God), correct?

Also, do you mean that an amoral world is impossible, or just that our current world is moral?

I'm asking because I just don't think in those terms on my own.

Edit: I got a partial answer from your reply to another comment, and I continued there.

Comment by Vanilla_cabs on How can there be a godless moral world ? · 2021-06-21T14:52:47.844Z · LW · GW

I introspected and realized that not only did I not believe on a gut-level that there could be such a world, I also couldn't think of any convincing argument to imagine it intellectually at least. I also realized that even though it may not be sufficient to convince me of the inexistence of God, it would be a strong blow to my faith nonetheless, and it's almost definitely a necessary argument to atheism.

The phrasing is a little ambiguous. Just to confirm:

  • you don't believe that there can be a godless moral world
  • if there could be a godless moral world, that would go towards convincing you of the inexistence of God
  • proving the existence of a godless moral world is necessary to atheism

Are those your points? Just curious. I can't give arguments for a godless moral world, because I don't believe in a moral world. And (therefore) I disagree with point 3). Atheism doesn't need to prove the existence of a godless moral world because our world is not a moral world (by your definition).

Comment by Vanilla_cabs on Covid vaccine safety: how correct are these allegations? · 2021-06-18T08:21:56.211Z · LW · GW

Aaaand the video's gone.

Edit: Available at either

https://odysee.com/@ReelNews:8/How-to-Save-the-World-in-Three-Easy-Steps,-Robert-Malone,-Steve-Kirsch,---Bret-Weinstein:5

https://odysee.com/@GatheringOfEagles:9/how-to-save-the-world-ivermectin:b

Comment by Vanilla_cabs on Covid vaccine safety: how correct are these allegations? · 2021-06-13T13:03:56.542Z · LW · GW

there are time marks in the description on youtube
 

As timestamps go, I found these ones to be well-made and more useful than the usual:

00:00 Introductions
02:20 This must be discussed
03:13 Will herd immunity be reached?
07:58 Spike protein is very dangerous 
13:45 FDA knew it could be toxic if it didn't stay stuck
18:09 Vaccine sufferers censored
23:26 Reviewing the FDA data package 
26:41 Corners were cut
27:52 Steve looking at VAERS
32:37 Robert's friends at the FDA and the emergency use authorisation
37:38 Risk benefit and quality life years
40:18 Alternative to vaccines
44:19 Mask wearing RCT
45:28 Three anomalies around vaccines
46:05 Fluvoxamine trials
51:00 Two million dollar offer and the NIH
52:13 Robert's view of the NIH
53:00 Regulatory capture
54:41 Fauci's emails
56:30 Merck on Ivermectin
59:24 Emergent phenomenon
01:01:42 Vaccine deaths
01:03:24 Tess Lawrie's vaccine safety data
01:04:43 Difference between the gene therapy vaccines
01:06:40 Self reported deaths from vaccines
01:09:18 Adverse reactions
01:17:12 Robert on V-safe database
01:19:30 Social media censorship
01:22:20 Steve's experience with denial
01:24:17 Two teams
01:28:20 "Don't come back until your lips are blue"
01:30:52 "Treat people early with drugs"
01:32:11 Ignoring frontline doctors
01:35:39 Financial incentives
01:37:28 Response to demand for RCT on ivermectin
01:38:39 Robert's personal experience with repurposing drugs
01:40:52 Mink and ferrets lab research
01:43:53 Robert on animal model for COVID treatment
01:46:33 Ivermectin works
01:49:13 Repurposing drugs
01:52:17 Doctors ignoring treatments
01:55:31 Effective treatments for long haulers
01:56:45 Robert's response on incentives and hospital liability
02:01:42 Additional antiviral and Gilead overlooking it
02:03:13 Communication is forbidden
02:04:53 Using antivirals as soon as virus presents
02:06:41 Multiple drugs at once and Dr Drew
02:11:02 Trials with drug combinations
02:13:53 Criticism of Fauci and mechanisms of action for ivermectin
02:17:35 Pfizer data on where the vaccine spike protein goes
02:20:42 Spike protein in the ovaries and bone marrow
02:22:12 FDA signals of risk from vaccines and auto-immune issues
02:27:41 Bret summarises and discusses additional harms
02:28:31 Vaccines possibly causing escape mutants
02:31:56 Antibody dependent enhancement (ADE)
02:38:19 Why did Robert and Steve get vaccinated?
02:40:54 Summary of risks including coagulation problems
02:42:41 FDA, thalidomide, and reproductive toxicity
02:48:12 Vaccinating adolescents
02:50:00 Steve on vaccinating his children and the response he receives
02:56:38 Don't be a pioneer, you'll get arrows in the ass
03:00:01 Extended regulatory capture
03:01:10 Can Elon Musk save the planet?
03:05:17 Pharmaceutical industry offshore
03:08:59 Steve's solution, plea to big tech employees, and vaccine long haulers
03:13:41 Robert speaking to big tech employees
03:15:55 Wrap up

Comment by Vanilla_cabs on Covid vaccine safety: how correct are these allegations? · 2021-06-13T07:34:14.041Z · LW · GW

Could you make a digest of their main points? That might help get everybody on the same page to start the discussion.

Edit: Ok, TBH, I just don't feel like watching a 3-hour long video ATM. But others might prefer to have the original debate in full rather than a digest.

Edit 2: Thanks for listing noteworthy points. I'm in the process of passively listening to the video bit by bit.

Comment by Vanilla_cabs on The Moon is Down; I have not heard the clock · 2021-06-13T06:23:57.708Z · LW · GW

Thanks, I actually never had noticed any of the points you make!

Comment by Vanilla_cabs on Qria's Shortform · 2021-06-08T07:56:22.946Z · LW · GW

Any goal you'd have would be achieved better with sufficent longevity.

That is false for a lot of goals, including goals that have a deadline.

Comment by Vanilla_cabs on [Book Review] Blueprint for Revolution · 2021-06-07T21:09:46.250Z · LW · GW

To concur with this article, the french Resistance started with kids and teenagers graffitying and parading during the national holiday in cities remote from centers of power. Then some adults started printing alternate news in the form of pamphlets. Only after a period came sabotaging, then armed resistance.

This is why it's so incredibly important to enforce nonviolence on the side of the revolutionaries.

There's a hidden assumption here. It's important to appear nonviolent. Enforcing nonviolence is only useful insofar as it contributes towards appearing nonviolent. Information sources that are government-owned/sympathetic will paint you violent no matter what. Sources that are revolution-owned/sympathetic will paint you nonviolent no matter what. In an increasingly polarized world, what actually happens matters less and less to reputation.

Comment by Vanilla_cabs on Often, enemies really are innately evil. · 2021-06-07T19:57:05.821Z · LW · GW

"good", "evil" and "responsibility" are terms that are hard to agree on a definition.

A fact that everyone should agree on is that each event has multiple causes, defined as previous events that are necessary for the event to happen. In the case of a person's behaviour, some causes are internal and others are external. What is relevant depends on what you can leverage. I don't see how saying "some people are good, some are just evil" can be leveraged to reduce bullying. But I believe making school less prison-like would.

Also, an "unconstrained wild west environment" is neither a common nor natural environment. Humans have evolved to live in a network of constraining but flexible relationships, personal debts and cultural items.