zeke5123a
7hr ago
I lived during it. The CDC and Merriams literally changed the definition.
Now I think the argument is they changed it to be more in line with the technical definition but that doesn’t mean they didn’t change the definition which just happened to correspond with the general usage which TPTB gleefully motte and baileyed.
zeke5123a
8hr ago
It isn’t conspiratorial when the dictionary definition changes over night. Good riddance.
zeke5123a
21hr ago
Rate reduction is meaningless without knowing the base rate. If the base rate is de minimis, then even a massive reduction is still de minimis.
zeke5123a
21hr ago
No. There was a dictionary definition that matched the common usage. The covid vaccines were far and away from the dictionary definition which reflected common usage. They then changed the dictionary definition to match their technical usage.
However, every day people still operated under the common usage. TPTB preyed upon people mistaking the common usage for the technical usage and when called out on it cited the changed dictionary.
zeke5123a
1d ago
Common usage was the flu shot. That’s still the common usage (ie get your flu shot)
zeke5123a
1d ago
Notoriously, it wasn’t called the flu vaccine but flu shot.
For many vaccines, there was near 100% protection.
zeke5123a
1d ago
-
The reporting artifact falls down when all the other candidates received votes (ie it wasn’t just one candidate).
-
If it is a voting artifact can anyone show where Pratt gets a dump of votes but no one else?
zeke5123a
1d ago
Someone said that but provided no evidence. The problem with that claim wasn’t that one other candidate had voted to up. All other candidates excepting Pratt had their votes go up. So they release in batches for multiple candidates but not Pratt? That doesn’t pass the smell test.
zeke5123a
1d ago
-
The left did not have the grace to accept defeat when they lost to Trump. Instead, see what Obama did on his way out. Biggest underdiscussed scandal of all time.
-
The left created a system that enabled fraud without significant ability to detect fraud. They then claimed the absence of evidence was evidence of absence.
-
The court you cite decided not to fix this system prior to the election; they weren’t going to overturn after the fact without fraud being established beyond a unreasonable doubt.
-
Georgia seemingly has proven shenanigans occurred.
zeke5123a
2d ago
They created a system that easily allows fraud and makes smoking gun proof difficult. When people notice irregularities or things that look like fraud, the supporters of the system demand smoking gun. Instead the opposite should be the presumption — it’s fraud until proven otherwise.
zeke5123a
2d ago
But it wasn’t just Bass that went up. All other candidates but Pratt. Why was he the missing batch?
zeke5123a
2d ago
I dunno but it seems like these reporting errors seem to go in one way and it’s never quite clear how they are “corrected.”
zeke5123a
2d ago
No it’s not possible. Lizardman constant. The most favorable Dem districts tend to be 85-15% Dem. Not the 99-1 you’d need for this to make sense. By the way, some votes went to another Republican in the race. It was just zero to Pratt.
zeke5123a
2d ago
Thousands of votes and not a single one for the second largest (to that point) vote getter? Thats just not statistically possible
zeke5123a
4d ago
Fair enough. I do think most are jokes (but this one was snark—will try to raise the filter a little bit)
zeke5123a
4d ago
We disagree. The point of the trolley example is that you must make a choice of killing more or less. What messes with our intuition is that there is an obvious right answer (make sure fewer die) but it feels morally wrong to take action to kill an innocent.
It seems less morally wrong to take action to kill someone that created the situation whereby you must choose to kill more or less.
zeke5123a
4d ago
Coase made the point that any conflicts in rights are bilateral monopolies. That is, my factory is only a nuisance to your home because your home is there.
It is true that without the police Floyd may have lived that day (or may not have). But it’s also true that Floyd’s actions also caused his death. That is, there isn’t a single party responsible but multiple parties.
zeke5123a
4d ago
The analogy doesn’t hold. In the trolley situation, the victim is exogenously tied to the tracks. In the criminal situation, the criminal tied himself to the tracks. It was in fact just desserts (ie do bad things and bad things are likely to happen to you)
zeke5123a
4d ago
I was told by Scott Alexander that the mainstream media doesn’t lie so your post must be wrong.
zeke5123a
4d ago
And well he should’ve been arrested. Don’t steal from stores; don’t get arrested.
zeke5123a
4d ago
The biggest difference is that Floyd was human excrement. The world was better off with him not in it. Novak wasn’t committing a crime. Novak wasn’t tweeking from hard core drug use. Novak wasn’t acting fucking wild when the police showed up. Novak doesn’t have a history of home invasions where Novak held a gun to a pregnant woman.
The police’s job with Floyd was to restrain him because he was a criminal who was acting very wild. Notably the police did not start with kneeling on his back. That’s the first video that came out but if you watch the bodycam footage the police tried a lot before kneeling on him.
Ass to mouth machine? What kind of sicko are you??? /j
More options
Context Copy link