Elon is willing to commit a lot of capital and effort into his ideas. the production capabilities of Tesla are improving at a significant clip, and incorporating many state of the art techniques. Elon's approach to innovation is a lot of hype, but there is a lot of hustle to it too. I think he would consider it a waste and not fun any other way.
where it uses metrics of ~20% effective in protecting masks wearers from catching the disease in a model.
instead, we have the media saying that rand is wrong, and CNN chasing doctors that dare say that masks don't prevent all spread.
the media has long decided that some facts are best not shared, but now they are complicit with a censorship regime where we all know that masks don't work 100%, but we also know that we will get punished for saying it out loud.
things that were called misinformation from CNN:
- masks don't always work
- vaccines sometimes have side effects
- you will most likely survive covid
- vitamin c and d will help you fight covid.
To be clear I’m not saying there should be a centralized authority. I’m just saying that a “use citations” rule doesn’t get around the conundrum that somebody has to evaluate the citations.
from the article it says "Today, 6 media giants control a whopping 90% of what we read, watch, or listen to.". there is a heavy handed content moderation policy on all major social media platforms. it is a rare day when I don't see or hear of blocked suspended or banned content on social media.
for example, if the media would report on the side effects of the vaccines, instead of pretending there are none, then there would be less room for falsehoods to spread. I've yet to see fauci asked one question about vaccine side effects.
of course I'd love to hear how you determine rush Limbaugh listeners to be uninformed, especially since 90% of his show was reading/playing and then responding to mainstream news articles.
It doesn't, as it compare general rates with self selected "good driving conditions" as defined by the software - only highways, only good enough weather, only good enough maintenance state of the car.
Your notion is that everything is fine because according to Tesla, a company with a leader known for telling whoppers, they are killing less people on net?
Even if we trust them on that stat, which I certainly don't, that still doesn't mean they aren't killing people unnecessarily.
it is a bit scary to think we'd have to lobby government to allow any new invention to prove "safety". Tesla has indicated why it needs to enable these features in order to collect data to improve them, it has also shown that driving under autopilot are already reducing accidents (compared to without and national stats for all vehicles), and yet you call for a entire ban instead of thinking constructively. with the vision stack there will be improvements to the driver attentiveness checks. that would seem to mitigate abuse of the features, which is clearly meant to be supervised at all times by the operator.
it waste allowed to be discussed publicly. it was labeled a racist fringe debunked conspiracy theory, and that sent all the signals you needed to chill scientists from using their platforms and expertise to gain attention to this idea. for example, when the head of the CDC mentioned it during a hearing he was ridiculed. based on largely opinions published in the cause social media companies to limit and censor information, which Twitter and Facebook did, for example the whistleblower that appeared on tucker Carlson's show.
of course there were a few brave scientists that spoke the truth of the viability and likelihood of the lab leak hypothesis, but that only proves how severe the suppression of discussion was.
people let your political opinions dictate what discourse is acceptable and which is not. if one imagines that your political opponents "wished it to be true" and seem to think of even labelling the virus from china as some sort of wrong think then one can be happy to pick and choose whichever truth you want to accept. scientists both hear and abroad where able to dismiss that lab leak is not plausible, based on lack of evidence. but the same thing could be said for the wilderness human contact. fauci said based on history lab leak is unlikely, in spite of the fact that lab leaks had occurred in the past.
I personally have no doubt that China s messaging was to suppress support for the lab leak, and they have succeeding in avoid any pressure to come forward with the truth about the actives of that lab in Wuhan . I also think that there is an entire field on scientific study that needs much more regulation and discipline, and they have also avoided any significant scrutiny.
I will await the discussion from mainstream virologists on tv and in medical and scientific journals demanding transparency and reform. but I will not hold my breath.
>I will await the discussion from mainstream virologists on tv and in medical and scientific journals demanding transparency and reform.
That exists. It's exactly what people mis-read as scientists supporting the lab leak hypothesis. Instead they support a more open attitude by China regarding investigations, which is neither evidence nor proof of either an artificial origin for the virus, nor for the lab leak theory.
that's not accurate at all. look at the misleading medical information definition from Google
"Misleading content related to harmful health practices: Misleading health or medical content that promotes or encourages others to engage in practices that may lead to serious physical or emotional harm to individuals, or serious public health harm."
not only do they use the term misleading to define the term misleading, they clearly state any information that could cause serious public health harm is misleading. when people are screaming about vaccine misinformation they are often talking about discussing side effects of the vaccine, which causes hesitancy and therefore harm. if pressed for an example, they will pick up an absurd claim like 5g caused covid, but not the typical claims that the covid vaccine has reportedly killed thousands and injuries many more than that.
the labels disinformation, misinformation, misleading, potentially harmful are very orwellian, as many can take them to mean false information, but in fact these labels can be placed on perfectly true statements that are simply dissenting.
the one thing I wanted to know "is aquired immunity from other strains effective against delta" isn't mentioned or discussed. perhaps the door knockers will have the answers I need.
