nvm0n2

A system that can't even provide dental slots without needing police to break up fights is a catastrophically failed system and it is a huge problem of the UK that people have loyalty to this dying corpse of a department.

And then of course you have the constant strikes and inability to even see a doctor at all unless you win the game of phone lottery.

The NHS may have a simple user interface, but it doesn't actually work when you need it so that's not very helpful. And the idea this is a Tory problem is propaganda. The NHS budget only ever goes higher yet service gets worse. Dumping ever more money into this third world system is never going to work.

The evidence for this was referenced in my first post when I mentioned the Diamond Princess. Aerosol transmission isn't even slightly governed by inverse square law of distance from the source. It's fundamentally about air currents, which are non-linear and governed by things like ducts, walls, heat convection and even (in the case of SARS-1) the wind between buildings. You can't model this as a simple linear distance function, and this was made clear when I said that cases on the DP occurred a random throughout the ship.

> I routinely downvote people whose conclusions I agree with when their explanations or justifications are clearly deficient

Don't. Your ability to follow simple conversations is far too poor to judge others like this. You've admitted that you haven't researched the issue, failed to understand very basic things about what we're talking about in this thread, have clearly not followed any of the references we provided despite demanding evidence (of things that are well known outside this forum!), yet never considered the issue might be on your end even when other people have also pushed back on you.

You could respond to this situation by talking about it with your son openly, encouraging him to uphold the highest standards of scientific honesty and rigor, to try and stand out from the rest and blow the whistle if necessary. Be honest with him that grad school will be full of fraud and intellectual corruption. But by taking your current stance you're going to flee unpleasant information for years and both ended up be blindsided when you realize that biomedical grads are less trusted than journalists. You can't flag reality.

Concrete examples from your comment history: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32104731

"Given the weak sourcing, it feels like this article, in particular, flunks the "divisive subjects require more thought and substance" test."

(on a Bari Weiss article arguing that health authorities weren't really driven by science, something they now admit themselves was true).

In other comments you asserted that COVID vaccines can't possibly be dangerous but also said, "Convincing suspicious vaccine-skeptics of the value of vaccines is not the goal here. We're not a public health service; we're a forum for curious conversation. Tedious rehashes of antivax arguments aren't curious; they're just tedious."

If you don't like such discussions, ignore them! Nobody forces you to click through to the comments section. But this tactic of trying to define disagreement with your very strong opinions as not "curious" enough is tiresome. Other people do in fact want curious conversation, which will sometimes mean conversations about topics that you don't like. I'll say it again: leave those discussions alone. Stay away by all means, but don't interfere with other people's curiousity.

But I don't get your reply at all, wtallis. "the next few paragraphs should be about backing that claim up with convincing evidence and explanations" - which is what the stuff about the Diamond Princess, SARS-1 and Hong Kong was about? Evidence and explanations for why the droplet model was wrong. Do you see that? The connection is that the claim exposure as simple as inverse square law on distance assumes no aerosol transmission, which is incorrect.

It's hard not to feel that if people didn't keep flagging these kinds of discussions off the front pages, the wider HN community would be aware of all these basic facts which as the sibling post points out, is actually not controversial and hasn't been for years. HN is supposed to be about intellectual curiousity but the aggressive flagging behavior talked about by others in this thread means that too many posters here are stuck in a timewarp where it's still Jan 2020.

SARS-CoV-2 is an aerosolized virus that can spread long distances through air ducts, and hang in rooms for long periods. This was known since the Diamond Princess was put into lockdown and COVID cases appeared randomly throughout the ship anyway, way back in 2020. The only possible explanation for this was transfer via the ship's air circulation system. It's as expected also because the same thing was observed with SARS-1 in Hong Kong.

It may also spread via droplets, but that doesn't mean it's the dominant path or even important at all.

Incorrect models of how this whole thing works are exactly why none of the predictions coming out of epidemiology were correct (or even close). If you think the dynamics of COVID are "self evident to the point of being axiomatic" you'll have to explain why nobody was able to correctly predict what it'd do next.

But you also say that making it undiscussable is also not about making the topic untouchable. That's just playing with words, isn't it? It's exactly what you're trying to do and exactly why you're flagging it.

This particular case is really egregious. Fauci has said this draconian policy "just sort of appeared", yet you damn anyone questioning his competence or motives as lacking humility? What would it take for you to allow criticism of this guy?

But this attitude explains a lot of the abusive flagging that goes on here. Stories get flagged because they make people feel ick, and they feel ick because they previously took positions that were wrong. So they flag. And when asked, why do you flag, they say "I don't know, I just don't like it", forgetting that the site exists supposedly to help drive intellectual curiousity. You may not like these stories, but other people do find them useful and you should not interfere with them.

China isn't really a capitalist country. It's more capitalist than it used to be in the 70s, but as this refusing-to-liquidate nonsense shows, the basic rules of capitalism don't really work there. China ignores many things that are required to really do capitalism properly:

- IP rights aren't enforced

- Other kinds of property rights aren't enforced (see the ARM subsidiary that simply declared independence)

- Staying out of private business (see Ant Group)

- Many companies and industries are state owned

- Industrial policy is still the standard in China (compare to the USA)

- Markets aren't informed (rampant censorship, bad data)

and so on.

https://pubpeer.com/search?q=scigen

Or for a more serious example of problems (medical AI):

https://pubpeer.com/publications/ABB8F161E6691210C44545FF899...

The authors report an AUROC of 1.00. This is extremely high and implies perfect discrimination between cases and controls, which seems unlikely given the highly heterogeneous nature of ASD and suggests some sort of data leakage

...

The highlighted point estimates are not in the middle of their confidence intervals, either by a modest amount (yellow) or by a large amount (pink). In some pink cases, the point estimate is not inside the CI at all.

...

I have rather strong concerns regarding the apparent absence of a hold-out dataset.

https://www.karlstack.com/p/the-curious-case-of-claudine-gay

... after a whole article full of explanations, none of which involve surveying white men to ask them why they don't want to sign up anymore. Classic journalism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect#/media/File:Sunde...

https://forbetterscience.com/2020/01/20/the-wizard-men-curin...

Featuring a scientist who was rumbled for image cloning, and then submitted still more Photoshopped images in his corrections (accepted by the journal, of course, because why wouldn't you let a detected fraudster have a second try with higher quality fraud).

First comment: "I was at Cornell….you are still missing at least my ex-Boss and collaborators."

Even if doing what the ICJ wants is easy, there's a strong reason not to (from their perspective) - it implies the ICJ should be obeyed and legitimizes them. But why should Israel do that? It's just another leftie NGO from Netenyahu's perspective. Start following what those guys want and soon they will have to do nothing even as Hamas attacks again and again.

Yes you do. A core part of Nazi ideology was the Führerprinzip. They openly did not agree with the concept of democracy. If you don't talk publicly about your desire to overthrow democracy then you aren't a Nazi, it's as simple as that. The AfD do not want to overthrow democracy, therefore, they are not Nazis.

> It was a court case - but the court decided to drop the case

Do you understand the difference between prosecutors and the court? Because it feels like this understanding is missing here. None of the sources I can find mention the courts at all. There was going to be a prosecution of someone who insulted Höcke and the prosecutors - who are not the courts - decided not to, citing their own politically biased opinions.

But if the prosecutors don't prosecute, it never goes to court and never becomes a case. Right? The opinion of prosecutors has no legal weight whatsoever, that's the whole point of having courts in the first place.

> Or do you have another explanation why he wants to turn 180 degree in the view of the 3.Reich?

You've assumed he does, but that isn't obvious at all.

I would assume that if he objects to both allied and Nazi bombing being a war crime, he just doesn't accept that the concept of a war crime exists at all. This is a very common perspective outside of the left, because the notion of a war crime assumes there is such a thing as international law that makes it a crime, which in turn assumes the existence of an international government that can make and enforce such law. But there isn't any such government, therefore international law does not exist, therefore there is no such thing as a crime that countries can be found guilty of.

The left doesn't like this idea, they're big fans of the idea of world government and thus tend to enthusiastically support courts who pass "judgements", even when they aren't enforceable by anything.

I find both perspectives understandable. People on the left often don't, which is why you extrapolated from his position into assuming he must be a Nazi.

If you have a fixed monetary base and the economy grows, all that happens is that things get cheaper, which is what you'd intuitively expect if a society gets wealthier. Economists claim that this will trigger hoarding cycles but this is a strange almost pseudo-psychological claim. It doesn't happen in reality, where there are many examples of prices falling continuously over time in a sector without it causing recession within that sector.