Remember when simply considering certain possibilities was condemned as proposing conspiracy theories?
"The Lancet letter (also referred to as Calisher et al. 2020) was a statement made in support of scientists and medical professionals in China fighting the outbreak of COVID-19, and condemning theories suggesting that the virus does not have a natural origin, which it referred to as "conspiracy theories".[1][2] The letter was published in The Lancet on February 19, 2020, and signed by 27 prominent scientists, gaining a further 20,000 signatures in a Change.org petition.[3][4] The letter generated significant controversy over the alleged conflicts of interest of its authors, and the chilling effect it had on scientists proposing that the COVID-19 lab leak theory be investigated."
According to Eurostat Portugal "recorded an excess mortality rate of 23.9 %" in June 2022. "Other countries with rates over 15 % were Spain (16.7 %) and Estonia (16.2 %)." Overall: "Following a peak of 26.5 % in November 2021, in June 2022 excess mortality in the EU decreased slightly compared to the previous month, to 6.2 %." Bulgaria, Czechia, Italy, Hungary, and Slovakia recorded little or no excess deaths.
Romania (from where I’m from) recorded the least number of monthly deaths in June 2022 since at least 4 or 5 years (I’m on my phone, I have the Excel file with the stats themselves on my computer at home), and, comparing June 2022 to the average of June months for the 5 years before the pandemic, we had 15% less deaths (so you could say we had 15% “less” excess deaths, if that’s even a term).
The explanation is simple, most of our excess deaths happened during the pandemic itself, October 2021 had close to 100% more excess deaths compared to previous pre-pandemic October months, and while that was the worst month for us in terms of extra deaths there were still others with 30-40-50% excess deaths.
In other words it looks like, to put it bluntly, many of the people who would have died in June 2022 out of non-Covid causes had the pandemic not existed actually died in 2020 or 2021 because of said pandemic. In countries like Spain or Portugal not that many people died during the pandemic, hence those countries are now getting “out of it” with a weakened populace, a populace who dies “more” because of that “weakness” generated by the societal effects of the pandemic (less access to face-to-face doctor consultations, for example).
A true science-based society will try to look at all these numbers in 5 years’ time with a neutral mind, so that when the next pandemic comes we will be better prepared to make decisions about lockdowns (“is it really worth it to close everything down if people will die nevertheless when the pandemic ends?”), but I have a feeling that won’t happen.
No; Musk has demonstrated with his actions that he is a liar and his word means little. You could look at his “taking Tesla private at $420; funding secured” tweet, or his late SEC filing for his large ownership stake in Twitter where he claimed to be a passive investor days before making this offer, or any number of prior examples. If you assume good faith from Musk at this point, you are a fool.
That's not what "bad faith" means. If GP didn't care if their statement were true but just said it to make Musk look bad, then it would be in bad faith.
Musk has been very publicly coy about his intentions for several months, so it's hard not to have an opinion at this point. Just because that opinion may be wrong doesn't mean it's offered in bad faith.
Your greatest enjoyment in life... So the most upvoted post chose the flow state in order to momentarily forget the existence of suffering that is life and the second most upvoted post chose Netflix and aimlessly driving around in the car. I wonder if this indicates something about the state of modern society.
I agree. I remember an article by Chris Avellone responding to allegations of misconduct also got flagged. Now he seems to be widely viewed as being a victim of false accusations.
>So what exactly had those 248 pages said? What had David Sabatini been found guilty of that merited this kind of punishment? Chiefly, failing to disclose his consensual relationship with Knouse. On top of that, the report found that Sabatini, in his day-to-day administration of the lab, violated the Whitehead’s Anti-Harassment Policy, since his “behavior created a sexualized undercurrent in the lab.” Sabatini’s relationship with Knouse exacerbated things, given his “indirect influence” over her, which violated the Anti-Harassment Policy and ran afoul of the “spirit” if not the letter of another of the institute's policies. True, he didn’t supervise Knouse. He didn’t work directly with her. He never threatened her or proposed a quid pro quo. And he certainly didn’t have the power to fire her. But, according to the report, he had “experience, stature, and age” over her. Knouse’s apparent desire to continue their relationship only served to confirm his influence: “That she felt the need to act ‘fun’ to impress Sabatini underscores how Sabatini’s words and actions profoundly impacted her,” the lawyers wrote. Nor did the lawyers care for the happy hours and whiskey tastings that Sabatini sometimes hosted in his office, which betrayed his “apparent ‘friendliness’ and general propensity to have ‘fun.’” (Knouse, in her counterclaim, says the events were “drunken,” and “conversations quite frequently veered to the sexual.”) “While we have not found any evidence that Sabatini discriminates against or fails to support females in his lab, we find that Sabatini’s propensity to praise or gravitate toward those in the lab that mirror his desired personality traits, scientific success, or view of ‘science above all else,’ creates additional obstacles for female lab members,” the report concluded.
Not sure I understand what is damning about his behavior based on this summary.
There is plenty wrong here, but the summary basically tries to pin it on Knouse when multiple women made complaints. One of the court filing had three accusers.
I'm not a court to decide who is wrong here, but this does not look like a clear example of cancel culture. Going against this guy must have been a huge risk for these women.
> Sabatini’s propensity to praise or gravitate toward those in the lab that mirror his desired personality traits, scientific success, or view of 'science above all else'...
It sounds like the way to "succeed" in the lab was by an amalgamation of personality + merit, which sounds pretty reasonable. This is one of the very common modes in which people get ahead.
If you are one of many researchers in the lab, equally capable, but you could gain an edge by flirting, sleeping with the head, etc, it behooves one to gain that advantage. And it can develop into a subtle, but insidious toxicity. It's the elephant in the room that no one points out, but also impossible to ignore, if you're considering how one's social dynamics play into career prospects.
The problem is that many men are incredibly smart and nuanced in being capable of hitting just a bit too low, glancing just a moment too long, stepping just a half-step too close, insinuating with just a teency amount of overstepping boundaries, while maintaining the illusion that everything is above board and with plenty of plausible deniability. And to be subjected to that type of environment, as a woman, is this subtle non-verbal gaslighting that feels impossible to criticize or pinpoint without coming away as being perceived as delusional. However, women all around feel it, but this behavior hasn't necessarily been labeled yet.
Even more challengingly, these slightly lower bids, are a built-in "feature" of human relationships and connection. It's a part of this dance we use to renegotiate relationships. But there's also unspoken and hidden contracts at play, where temporary advances, while not welcome with enthusiastic consent, won't be punished as long as they are temporary and ephemeral.
Sabatini, likely never grossly crossed certain boundaries, but it seems that his behavior, choices and the air of his presence was just underhanded enough with enough women, with enough persistence, that finally multiple women would step forward.
I'm willing to speculate that there was likely an unspoken contract between Sabatini and Knouse, where Knouse may have believed herself to be a much more serious connection to Sabatini, while Sabatini, over time, unveiled a growing disinterest in her. I'm also willing to bet that Sabatini had a seduction playbook of some sort that Knouse likely realized, either on her own, or in concert with other women, and finally retaliated to "protect" other women in the lab.
Confounding this is that it's also very likely, that he had plenty of excellent and non-underhanded relationships with other female researchers who are quoted to vouch for him and his excellence.
With the given story, it's impossible to pronounce judgement that he should have lost his career or that he was assaulting women per se, but when there is a pattern of women #meToo'ing to a person of power, there's a tremendous amount of signal pointing to something more underhanded going on.
If I launch a campaign against you by accusing you of things, and bringing people in rage with the accusation so that they support me because this evil must not continue, there’s a tremendous amount of signal. But does this tremendous amount of signal point to something more underhand going on? No.
The article states “Knouse […] had ongoing flings with men […] and she wanted to keep it that way.” When Sabatini’s interest in her faded, he is suddenly accused of harassment by her. Peculiar timing. The article writes, “It would also pacify Knouse, who wanted to see Sabatini fired publicly. ‘Part of me just wants to organize a protest […]’ wrote Knouse to a friend during the investigation.”
Sounds very much like revenge of a scorned lover that is enabled by an a lynch mob environment.
I think it's connected to a more general phenomenon though. Pewdiepie has 111 million subscribers on YT and gets like 3-5 million views per video. Like 95% of his subscribers don't watch his videos.
> Please don't comment on whether someone read an article. "Did you even read the article? It mentions that" can be shortened to "The article mentions that."
Okay, sorry, it's just that it's not nearly as unambigious as they claim. It could be an exit move, it could also be Musk trying to renegotiate the price. Also, he just tweeted: "Still committed to acquisition." https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1525080945274998785
The statements are contradicting. You don't announce that a deal is on hold unless you're questioning whether you're committed. That is like telling your fiance the wedding is on hold. I'm hopeful just the tweet saying the deal was on hold will be considered a violation of the agreement as it will clearly affect the stock price.
A searchable consequence of Lookism is body dysphoria.
IPEDs have never been that popular and it is only a matter of time before men start to artificially enhance their appearance via makeup too.
Tiktok is amplifying those network effects and beauty standard competition pressures to a never before seen level. Mankind should have banned it while it was still time.
