3hoss

> Most people don’t like computers.

Ummmm, what? People love their smartphones, and do you know what those are?

Computers.

Mads Mikkelsen? I'm very skeptical that this is real, and kind of disappointed that HN is being so credulous.

how, exactly, is that relevant here?

To quote John Mulaney: "Because we're Delta Airlines, and life is a fucking nightmare."

But, that's not what sterilising immunity means. The fact that previously infected individuals were infected again means that their natural infection did not provide sterilising immunity. Better immunity? That's debatable, but it's not, by any definition I've seen, sterilising immunity.

Eh, I just looked at the submission and comment history on your brand-new 5 day old account: you're just a troll and not even a very good one at that.

Oh really? That's an extraordinary claim: care to provide any evidence? Otherwise, I call BS.

Also, they have the same information duplicated at c19study.com, c19ivermectin.com, c19early.com, and likely others. Not necessarily indicative of anything nefarious, but it sure is spammy and makes it less trustworthy IMO. Plus, I get a strong whiff of "dO yOuR oWn ReSeArCh" in all of the commentary.

From the FAQ: "Who is @CovidAnalysis? We are PhD researchers, scientists, people who hope to make a contribution, even if it is only very minor. You can find our research in journals like Science and Nature. For examples of why we can't be more specific search for "raoult death threats" or "simone gold fired". We have little interest in adding to our publication lists, being in the news, or being on TV (we have done all of these things before but feel there are more important things in life now)."

I'm sorry, but if you're not willing to put your name(s) behind your analysis, I'm going to be skeptical.

do you think the police officer's response to Ms. Bland's non-compliance in this case was reasonable? also, in your opinion, could he have de-escalated the situation before pointing a potentially lethal weapon at Ms. Bland's face? i'm really struggling trying to understand how you've arrived your thesis, which seems to be: just don't make cops mad and you (probably) won't die? that seems to me a poor standard for those entrusted with maintaining public safety. since the officer is the person with literally ALL of the power in this interaction and, ostensibly, is provided with extensive training on how to manage difficult interactions such as this, shouldn't he be held to a higher standard of accountability than Ms. Bland?

honest question: did you get partial tumescence when you typed "water[ing] the tree of liberty"?

again, why do you think simple compliance precludes the possibility of police violence? I can think of several examples literally off of the top of my head where this was not the case, many of which were already cited in the comments. So, why are you so sure that this would have been the outcome in this case?

you seem pretty confident in predicting that outcome - why?

That's a completely fair analysis of that page: the experience on that page is not great, and we realize that we're not presenting the value to a user who lands on that page in a compelling way. We need to work on improving pages like that, and I'm fine with devaluing those based around a quality metric.

But what about a page like this: http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=9727120. Would you classify this page in the same way as the category page you reference above?