bxk1

"Good faith", "bad faith" labeling is not logical, it's more of an attempt to apply morality and ideology to reasoning to reject something based on your own preferred beliefs and feelings. Similarly illogical is evaluating evidence "from each side", this is not how to evaluate anything, there needs to be some base rate to compare the evidence to and all the evidence has to be compared, not just something cherry picked from each side, and not just evidence, known unknowns and unknown unknowns have to be considered too, and so on. It's way more complicated than people want it to be.

And it's very hard to have good logical arguments not full of fallacies. You will certainly never see them in mass media, as mass media needs to influence your opinion, not provide background for making a good decision.

Daniel Kahneman in his Thinking fast and slow book wrote plenty on reasoning, check it out if you haven't, it'll open your eyes on reasoning (I know the book had some crucial things wrong for his theory, but a lot of things throughout the book are still ok).

COVID is as deadly as flu. Some people just underestimate flu, as if it's something not dangerous.

> that the pandemic was faked

Technically all pandemics are faked, because what is and isn't pandemic is more or less an arbitrary decision made by some official purely for propaganda and obedience reasons. It doesn't actually matter if it's called pandemic or not.

> how the rejection of evidence and conspiracy-theorizing are harmful

Evidence based reasoning is not much different from superstition, it could be just as harmful as rejecting evidence to whatever you think rejecting evidence is harmful. To illustrate how faulty that reasoning is, here you are rejecting evidence that there was a literal conspiracy against general population with some officials and institutions telling people that masks don't work, an evidence they are liars, but somehow you don't want to consider that evidence in your evidence-based reasoning and suggest that others should not reject evidence from liars.

Of course you can't just accept evidence if you want something more than a superstition level decision making. For that you need to actually think and calculate, with all those base rates and probabilities, use something like bayesian reasoning or whatever, do some science. Even just quickly estimating this is still better than "accepting evidence".

"Caddy has been acquired by the company behind ZeroSSL"

It does for most use cases where you want to run images meant for different CPU architectures, like amd64. It shouldn't if you want to run something meant for the same CPU architecture, which isn't going to be a thing for a long long time.

Why is it worse for society? Guilt is already an emotion that exists for society, not for self-interest, it relies on morals, which all are learned through other people. If people are leaning more towards denial, it means that the cost for an individual to do something immoral is already too high, doesn't leave much room for mistakes that people inevitably make from time to time, so more people denying might be a natural feedback loop to make more space.