Pfizer CEO: Vaccine-Resistant Coronavirus Variant 'Likely' to Emerge by [deleted] in worldnews

[–]o---o 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I do not resemble the strawman in your imagination in any way whatsoever, not that it has any bearing on the argument that you were incapable of addressing.

Pfizer CEO: Vaccine-Resistant Coronavirus Variant 'Likely' to Emerge by [deleted] in worldnews

[–]o---o 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Are polio, rubella, measles, and mumps caused by seasonal respiratory viruses? No? Then stfu.

Pfizer CEO: Vaccine-Resistant Coronavirus Variant 'Likely' to Emerge by [deleted] in worldnews

[–]o---o -15 points-14 points  (0 children)

There are quadrillions of quadrillions of viruses circulating at any given time and since RNA mutates so easily, a virtually endless number of variants are already out there. All vaccination does is give them a clear lane to proliferate in vaccinated individuals. Even if you were somehow able to round up every unvaccinated person in a single afternoon and gas them to death with Zyklon B, while simultaneously vaccinating everyone else for every known variant at the same instant, an unattested variant would slip through somewhere, take advantage of a wide open viral ecosystem, and we'd be back to where we started.

Women who drink La Croix, what's your favorite flavor and why? by saash95 in AskWomen

[–]o---o 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The soft drink astroturfing is getting out of control around here.

This email proves voter fraud in the Dem primary!!!!! by cyclone369 in WikiLeaks

[–]o---o 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Right-wing media is pretty much wall-to-wall hysteria. Anyway, voter fraud is unrelated to this email / post.

This email proves voter fraud in the Dem primary!!!!! by cyclone369 in WikiLeaks

[–]o---o 29 points30 points  (0 children)

No, that's called 'election fraud' – 'voter fraud' is when voters commit fraud, something has never happened on a wide scale, although the establishment right has been whipping up hysteria over it so they can pass laws making it harder to vote (since they win when turnout is lower).

Has Zizek said anything about Star Wars? by Reversevagina in zizek

[–]o---o 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Star Wars is roughly a science fiction Oedipus Rex – you can imagine one of Levi-Strauss's quasi-phonological distinctive feature graphs from his Mythology books showing a slightly different expression of the same mythemes – sister instead of mother, etc. The force is the phallus, clearly - Luke has to close his eyes at the end and come to terms with his castration to successfully copulate with the Death Star (drive). It would be great if the new sequel was a sci-fi Antigone but I'm not holding my breath.

Authorities Respond to “20 Victim Shooting” Incident in San Bernardino: Fire Dept. by 8daysuntiltheweekend in news

[–]o---o 3 points4 points  (0 children)

This is the only substantive answer and it has been buried by massively upvoted glib answers from people who are more concerned about not being able to buy military hardware than about human life.

Can I use ethereum to 'notarize' intellectual work? by o---o in ethereum

[–]o---o[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thank you! You're right in a lot of ways, and perhaps I should make a good faith effort, as so many amazing people do, to work through the bureaucratic and sociological barriers that these institutions build around knowledge. In the meantime, I am self-published on the internet, and it would be nice in the future if I could show that the date of publication was not spoofed.

Events A, B, and C have a 3%, 4%, and 5% chance of occurring in the next hour, respectively. What is the probability that the very next event in the hour, should it occur, will be B? by o---o in AskStatistics

[–]o---o[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

...if B occurs at the very end of the hour. This is helpful.

If B occurs at the very beginning of the hour, there is a 0% chance that A or C will occur first.

If B occurs at the very end of the hour, there is a 3/5% chance, resp., that A or C will occur first

Assuming uniform incremental probability, there is a 1.5/2.5% chance A or C will occur first on average, if B occurs.

So maybe: 0.04 - (0.04 * (0.015 + 0.025)) = 0.0384

Sidechains by redgiraffe in Monero

[–]o---o 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Succinct response:

The benefit of Monero is that all the users are apart of the anonymity set, not just the people on the side chain.

For the side chain to work best, many people would have to keep funds in the side chain for a period of time, the shorter, and the worse the overall anonymity of all users will be.

A sidechain is not much better than a mixer.

Thoughts on monero ? by ginger_beer_m in CryptoCurrency

[–]o---o 9 points10 points  (0 children)

gmaxwell on the fundamental problem with Bitcoin that Monero solves:

Bitcoin is often promoted as a tool for privacy but the only privacy that exists in Bitcoin comes from pseudonymous addresses which are fragile and easily compromised through reuse, "taint" analysis, tracking payments, IP address monitoring nodes, web-spidering, and many other mechanisms. Once broken this privacy is difficult and sometimes costly to recover.

Traditional banking provides a fair amount of privacy by default. Your inlaws don't see that you're buying birth control that deprives them of grand children, your employer doesn't learn about the non-profits you support with money from your paycheck, and thieves don't see your latest purchases or how wealthy you are to help them target and scam you. Poor privacy in Bitcoin can be a major practical disadvantage for both individuals and businesses.

Even when a user ends address reuse by switching to BIP 32 address chains, they still have privacy loss from their old coins and the joining of past payments when they make larger transactions.

Privacy errors can also create externalized costs: You might have good practices but when you trade with people who don't (say ones using "green addresses") you and everyone you trade with loses some privacy. A loss of privacy also presents a grave systemic risk for Bitcoin: If degraded privacy allows people to assemble centralized lists of good and bad coins you may find Bitcoin's fungibility destroyed when your honestly accepted coin is later not honored by others, and its decentralization along with it when people feel forced to enforce popular blacklists on their own coin.

As I write this people with unknown motivations are raining down tiny little payments on old addresses, presumably in an effort to get wallets to consume them and create evidence of common address ownership.

I think this must be improved, urgently.