Committing a crime is bad, trying to cover up that you're committing a crime makes it obvious (as a generalisation) you knew you shouldn't have been doing the crime.
I can't agree about the "it just works" part. About a year ago I build a new PC, and I tried installing Mint on it. I ran into two issues that I was never able to resolve:
1. The WiFi just would not work; I couldn't see any networks.
2. I have 2 monitors, and one monitor would display 80% of one screen, and 20% of the other. I suspect that it was because the monitors had different refresh rates and resolutions.
I then tried installing Windows, and everything did just work.
> content that falsely alleges that approved vaccines are dangerous and cause chronic health effects
The J & J vaccine was approved at the time, but was later banned for causing chronic health effects.
> claims that vaccines do not reduce transmission or contraction of disease
Isn't that true of the covid vaccines? Originally, the proponents claimed that getting the vaccine would stop you from getting covid entirely, but later on, they changed the goal posts to "it will reduce your symptoms of covid".
> The J & J vaccine was approved at the time, but was later banned for causing chronic health effects.
That's not what happened. Authorities received rare reports of a clotting disorder and paused it for 11 days to investigate. That pause was lifted but the panic caused a crash in demand and J&J withdrew it from the market. Source: https://arstechnica.com/health/2023/06/j-fda-revokes-authori...
It seems like you are implying that the pause was lifted because they found nothing. That's not quite right. J&J vaccine killed 9 people, and the FDA issued restrictions on who could get it, limitations on who should get it, and warnings about the side effects.
Your source doesn't mention the nine deaths or the blood clotting side effect. It doesn't convey that there were legitimate, validated reasons for the pause and downgrade. "Rare reports" and "Nine Deaths" reads differently.
This highlights what’s so difficult with science communication.
Right here on what should be a technical minded forum, people don’t understand what science is or how it works. Or what risk is. And they don’t even challenge their own beliefs or are curious about how things actually work.
If the “smart” people can’t or won’t continuously incorporate new information, what are our chances?
> Originally, the proponents claimed that getting the vaccine would stop you from getting covid entirely
Some people don’t understand how vaccines work, so may have claimed that, but efficacy rates were very clearly communicated. Anyone who listened in high school biology should know that’s not how they work.
I disagree; this wristband might be a game changer because your hand does not need to be free to use it (at least in theory, we'll see how it actually plays out). Also, I'm willing to bet that for some people, this wristband might be more accessible than a regular keyboard (i.e. people with limited mobility or missing hands). Compare it to the laser beam keyboard, which is just a flat version of a regular keyboard.
> why have mechanical keyboards become so damn popular and not "keyboards on screens?"
Keyboards in general have become more popular, as more and more people get computing devices. I'm willing to bet the increase of keyboards on screens is much greater than the increase of mechanical keyboards; there are far more smartphones than mechanical keyboards.
> It's not a deal. They don't understand what's happening.
So what? Mutualism happens all the time in nature, even if neither party is consciously aware of it. The relationship between humans and bees is very similar to the relationship between coral polyps and algae; the algae make sugars for the polyps, and polyps provide protection for the algae.
I take issue with the framing of the industrial-scale farming of introduced species that outcompete native pollinators as a pact between equals. That the bees choose anything.
In your comparison, neither the algae nor the polyps have the capacity to reason about or alter their arrangement.
In a fair deal, both parties must be able to reason about and/or withdraw from the arrangement.
If only one party is able to reason about and withdraw from an arrangement, the other party is being used.
In this case, bees are tools being used. I'm not willing to say that it's a great moral evil for that reason, but bees not only don't have the capacity to understand the arrangement, they will die trying to kill to defend their honey.
So my only appeal in this case is not to pretend that they choose.
If only one party is able to reason about and withdraw from an arrangement, the other party is being used.
This is our relationship with all other life on earth. We use plants, fungi, bacteria, and animals to survive. We've invaded every continent on the planet (including Antarctica) and like some kind of mega-beavers we've radically reshaped environments to suit ourselves, destroying habitats for some and creating new ones for others (squirrels and many species of birds seem to thrive like crazy where I live in the city, with few predators to endanger them).
What survives and what doesn't survive is largely our choice. No other animal on the planet has this capacity for choice. Whether we favour one species over another or vice versa, it's our choice in either case. Many people do try to frame this as a moral choice but neglect the human side of it. Making real change to help wildlife requires scaling back human society, reducing food production, reducing housing and other infrastructure.
Well, it's not exactly their honey, because they have no notion of property or propriety. They'll just as soon die trying to kill to take your sugary snack.
If they don't have the capacity for considering themselves wronged, and won't get it, can you really wrong them? Are there really even two parties here?
Now it may still be wrong for other reasons to keep bees, like destroying nature by wiping out native pollinators etc.
I dont think keeping bees is morally wrong. I eat meat too and some animal had to die for that.
But I do think that comment up thread trying to frame it as some service to them or "sweet deal" is ridiculous. It reminds me when management/politicians make chances strictly for own benefit and puts out manipulative memo trying to make the situation sound as anything but that.
It is ok to use bees for honey. We dont do it for bees and they are not getting all that much value from that.
Funny, I'm the opposite; I love Hollow Knight, but I didn't like Ori at all. I think it's because of the visual design; I couldn't tell if that glowing orb is an enemy, a bullet, or a pickup.
