natex

This author does what other pro-industry mouthpieces do: 1. Reference a real scientific study with a genuine but conditional result, 2. Remove the qualifications associated with the study, so they can 3. Make a much stronger rhetorical conclusion.

Or they simply willfully misreport the results.It's exhausting exercise to have to continuously fact-check these shills. Here's just one example from the article:

"Approximately a hundred rivers, mostly in South and South-East Asia, account for half of ocean plastic."

That is not supported by the cited study. Earlier models estimated highly concentrated emissions; the cited paper concluded that emissions were distributed among far more rivers than previously thought.The cited paper actually helped overturn the older “a handful of rivers cause nearly everything” story. Yet the article uses it to tell essentially that same concentrated-source story.

Also, not "Half of ocean plastic." The paper actually says: “More than 1000 rivers account for 80% of global _riverine plastic emissions_ into the ocean." They did not measure half of all plastic in the ocean. The paper modeled annual floating macroplastic (not microplastics) emissions from rivers to ocean. That is different from: "all plastic already present in the ocean or "all plastic entering the ocean from every source".

> The only thing we do is very light sound-alike spelling modernization, like "to-night" -> "tonight".

Curious. Why even bother?

Curios. What are you responding to?

You might want to read the rest of the studies - or at least try to no misrepresent before commenting. There are elementary differences in the studies.

Study 1: "What to Eat", Specific Demographics, Primary Clinical Trial, Mechanistic/Physiological Outcome, Conclusion: High-Protein breakfast is superior for suppressing appetite and maintaining satiety, while a High-Fiber breakfast promotes better weight loss and a healthier gut microbiome,

Study 2: Whether to Eat, Broad Demographics, Systematic Review (meta analysis), Broad Clinical Outcomes, Conclusion: eating breakfast increases total daily energy intake compared to skipping it, and that skipping breakfast resulted in slightly greater weight loss.

Recently, I've researched browser battery consumption for laptops. Every test I've seen rates Firefox the worst out of the big 3 or 4. Are there any settings/extensions that may have been overlooked for these reviews that can be used to help Firefox be more energy efficient?

Not sure why this comment is getting downvoted. Seems like a rational opinion? What am I missing?

A municipality's decision to implement common locally-owned internet as a public utility IS the free market. The State should not get to decide what's a "waste of resources" for me and my neighbors.

> The criticism should instead be directed towards Microsoft,

Totally agree that MS deserves criticism as you correctly point out. However, criticism towards the script and similar is equally valid (and important).

I don't think that supports the speculation since as the GP stated, Google is actually doing the opposite of maximizing profits in this case.

Is your feeling on what Google's hopes speculation, or do you have some inside information?

I have used TurboTax pretty much my entire working life and never have been audited. The one time I decided to use a professional due to "complex" tax issues that year, I was audited, which became a huge pain in the ass.

I appreciate this comment but I have some questions/comments:

> I may find this article emotionally somewhat appealing but still don't think it's a useful view about philosophy. The first and foremost thing about philosophy laymen should realize is that the vast majority of philosophers do not consider philosophy a science.

I don't think the article was making a claim about philosophy being a science. On the contrary, it seemed make a pretty clear distinction between them and highlighted some perils of falsely mixing the two.

"Often implicit empiricist assumptions in epistemology, metaphysics and the philosophy of language are relied upon as if they were self-evident, and without awareness of the threat that those very assumptions pose to the author’s own reasoning. We can call this phenomenon scientistic pseudophilosophy."

"While pseudoscience can perhaps be counteracted by science education, the cure for pseudophilosophy is not science education but philosophical education."

> If you don't like a particular philosopher's work, you generally don't read and support it, and that's it. Calling the work pseudophilosophy will only enrage people who disagree and not help with anything.

The article wasn't about disagreeing with opposing philosophers' work, it as a critique of those non-philosophers who "fail to grasp the content of many of the philosophical claims and arguments that they criticize"

"There are two kinds of pseudophilosophy, one mostly harmless and the other insidious. The first variety is usually found in popular scientific contexts. This is where writers, typically with a background in the natural sciences, walk self-confidently into philosophical territory without realising it, and without conscientious attention to relevant philosophical distinctions and arguments.

The insidious kind of pseudophilosophy, which I will focus on here, is an academic enterprise, pursued primarily within the humanities and social sciences." (e.g. phenomenon obscurantist pseudophilosophy)

> The CEO did not explicitly state that they were quitting because they wanted time and space to plan their future.

Yes they did.

OP didn't ask what was true. Just what the stated reason was. The CEO did state reasons. Can't believe I have to say this on HN, "because" is implied.

They want a break from their present situation so they can concentrate on planning for their future plans since it's hard to plan for the future when they are fully involved in the present. That's why. Not vague at all.

> I read this twice just to make sure I didn't miss something, and I don't actually see a reason why. I don't actually see a reason why.

(Stated right in the sixth paragraph.) I’m going to take a break, and a research fellowship, as a place to think about what’s next. It’s hard to think about your future when you’re fully in your present, and for the past seven years, I’ve been fully present for this movement. But as I look around, I see global challenges such as polarization, inequality, and climate change, as well as opportunities for generational renewal and optimism. As a Wikimedian, I lean toward optimism, and plan to head in that direction.

Yes, I meant white balance sampler. Thanks again for sharing this.

I tried it out and it's pretty great. I could see getting through a bunch of photos pretty quickly.

If I may, a couple things I are sorely missing for me:

- White point selector

- Incremental changes to sliders with keyboard and/or mousewheel

- Output settings (jpg name, size/quality, scrub EXIF, etc.)

Thanks for sharing.

Not mentioned in the article, but Amazon also hasn't fixed its problem with fake reviews at Audible either. Thousands of 5-star ratings are similarly worded blurbs by accounts with 1 or 2 book reviews.

> I wonder if YouTube removed his channel for the cybersecurity videos, or if they removed his channel for posting walkthrough videos on how to pirate Burp Suite Pro ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I don't know, but I'm going to automatically berate YouToob's motives/competence, compare some other topics that I feel are less censored than cybersecurity (which is confusing since I haven't bothered to read YouTube's content policy), and preach about the importance of local backups!

> Yeah, for sure. Call it freedom of information, add a little bit of common sense to it, and your argument renders itself completely invalid.

No it doesn't. Obviously you aren't grasping the concept of free speech (and its limits).

> Google demonstrates that it doesn't follow a revenue driven agenda with these actions. It involves itself in selecting political views that it deems acceptable to influence the opinions of a world wide audience.

As is its legal right to do so.

> It is large enough to take on a quasi governmental role. If it was just acting as a neutral platform, I would buy your argument, but it obviously doesn't.

"Quasi government" is a meaningless word and doesn't really help your argument. Why would it have to act as a neutral platform?

Huh? Look it up again. Freedom of speech doesn't mean you have the right to say whatever you want any place you desire. Referring to the First Amendment, it protects from governmental repercussion. Google's censorship of its users presents no First Amendment implications as no governmental, or state, action is involved.

By censoring what is said on it's platform, Google is exercising it's own free speech. Google has a right to censor dangerous and shitty takes on it's platform. You have zero rights to be heard on Google's platforms.

> Laying out laws and regulations so the market works as intended (no doubt with adjustments on the way) seems like the far preferable way to ensure healthy competition...

That's what antitrust/monopoly laws do.

> It's a pity that we aren't capable of sustaining a situation like that without dismantling the very core of the democratic system: freedom of speech.

What about Google's free speech?

So far, the vast majority of court cases are getting tossed out due to lack of evidence. The courts are asking for more evidence but there is none.

At what point would you be agree that the claims are baseless? Like, what has to happen for you are confident about it?

Texas' lawsuit is frivolous and will get denied.

> they asked family members to sign that their relative died from covid when dying from something unrelated otherwise they are not allowed to retrieve the body for weeks.

At least in the UK and US this is misinformation and false. Cause of death is certified by doctors or coroners and added to a database that reported COVID deaths are pulled from. Family members do not have to sign anything before cause of death is determined. I'd wager that Greece is no different.

COVID deaths are well known. There are many scholarly articles out there on how they are counted for people who don't get their information from Facebook. Here's a quick little article for example. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-covid-19-deat...

> The idea that someone might want to wait just a little longer to see if any side effects emerge is not necessarily irrational.

In general, yes it is irrational. There is evidence that the benefits of vaccines (including this one) far outweigh the risks of side effects.

> Would you not concede that, if and when any unexpected side-effects do emerge (however rare or insignificant), this gung-ho attitude will backfire?

Sorry, but no, this is wildly irrational. Why are rare and insignificant side effects concerning when the lives of more than 60,000 people in the UK have already ended due to this virus?

The concerns are not being "simply dismissed". You just didn't take the time to read any of the material.

"JCVI recognises that the MHRA’s advice is based on the absence of evidence in pregnancy, and not on the presence of evidence to implicate toxicity in pregnancy."

It's all laid out for anyone with true concerns. Here you go: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/...