longhairedhippy

+1 on this, folks with just enough experience to have strong, yet naive, opinions is the bane of my existence. It is almost akin to a religious discussion, whereas folks will back up their suppositions with blind faith and defend those views to the death. Sorry if this is not adding a lot to the conversation, you just really struck a nerve!

I have realized that a really good open world video game with lots of replay value has an amazing value. $60 at 200 hours of gameplay works out to $0.30/hour, which I am struggling to find anything else I am interested in that has a similar fun-to-cost ratio.

On the flip side, if the game sucks, the average goes way down. Fortunately I'm a sucker for decent open world games so there's a relatively low chance for me.

So this is total anecdata but I have never been assaulted by someone that was stoned, and never seen someone become sexually aggressive or belligerent when stoned. I'm sure they exist, however those type of folks seem to be much less frequent that people who exhibit this behavior when drunk on alcohol.

I think it really comes down to the fact that weed was originally made illegal through disinformation and policies motivated by racial discrimination, when in reality it is at absolute worst, just as bad as alcohol. We need to stop policing people from themselves, especially when it is so hypocritical because of the massive alcohol and tobacco industries. Why do we need to keep wasting money on this?

Except for the fact that the Fed increasing the US money supply by 45% in 2 years was the cause of the inflation.

If only it was the UBI and not the Fed increasing the money supply by 45% in 2 years that caused the inflation.

It's not the checks that caused the inflation, it was the Fed increasing the money supply by 45% over 2 years.

I don't think it was the stimulus checks and unemployment benefits but the Fed increasing the US money supply by more than 45% in 2 years.

This is the real reason, why worry about people/orgs that don't have money? Plus, can you imagine blast radius of a bug in the system that could get a bad signal and shutdown your entire infrastructure? As a rule, I always try to avoid any pattern where touching/changing one thing will cause everything to fail. There is currently a mechanism in AWS to shutdown/delete resources for non-paying customers (disclaimer: used to work there), however it has an enormous amount of checks and balances, as well as a significant time lag before actually removing everything, in order to cut down on false positives.

Having said all this, I would love it if this was actually a feature. I watch my personal AWS account I use for toy projects with great anxiety that one day I will get a luxury new car sized bill.

The real reason is us-east-1 was the first and by far the biggest region, the same reason that new services always launch there but other regions are are not necessarily required (some services have to launch in every region).

The us-east-1 region is consistently pushing the limits of scale for the AWS services, thus is has way more problems than other regions.

I agree with your sentiment but some of the quotes in the article from internal Google memos look pretty damning. One of interest says their "Jedi" advertising program, which was meant to subvert legitimate ad competition from other exchanges, 'generates suboptimal yields for publishers and serious risks of negative media coverage if exposed externally.'

I also would like to see some changes but this seems like a case of Google actively trying to be evil. They architected their systems to choose their exchange, even if another exchange had a higher bid, and then lied to ad publishers about the practice, along with fully acknowledging it in writing! How much more self-aware could you be? How could people, in good conscience, work for a place like that?

> In terms of time, these vaccines very much have not been fully vetted in the same manner as any other vaccine.

This is a tired, out-dated argument, all 3 vaccines in distribution in the US have been fully vetted and passed all tests, there is no more "emergency approval". If time is what you want then you're just saying there is absolutely nothing that will convince you to take it.

> In part, yes. However there seems to be roughly an equal amount of people who have never had any objection to vaccines in the past that now do.

Yes, now that is has become a political issue instead of a scientific one (like it should be), many more people have been duped.

> what about finding safer adjuvants?

How about being realistic about the side effects of the vaccine? This is one of the most studied, most widely distributed vaccines in history. If there any data to back up any sort of hesitancy, I believe the amount of people desperately searching for something useful to use in their war on science would find it.

> you're saying they should be censored?

I'm saying viewpoints that obviously have absolutely no basis in reality (Bill Gates microchips, magnetizing face spoons, etc) should not have a place to flourish alongside real scientific discourse. How about we vet an idea before we let the masses with little to no critical thinking skills consume it.

> doesn't make the scientist's conclusion wrong either, just because the nut believes it too.

I have no idea what you're trying to say here, however if a "nut" says something sane, that doesn't make them sane. I think the larger problem is there are a lot of people with a lot of money to make by preaching vaccine hesitancy. If people are maliciously influencing public opinion for personal gain and the detriment of public good, how do you suggest we combat that?

I agree censorship is not the answer but I also don't support giving a platform to people in a society where people will accept absolutely anything in their echo chamber without question or serious discourse. The media has lost the confidence of the people and everyone is so caught up in bipartisanship, it's a literal crime the vaccine hesitancy falls along political lines, if anything that should tell you it is not based in science.

As many folks as we have dog piling onto "vax bad" train, there is no shortage of people with incentive to dig in here. The fact the vaccine has been fully vetted in the same manner as any other vaccine seems to be lost on most folks. Additionally, this seems to be an extension of general vaccine hesitancy which has absolutely no scientific basis whatsoever but continues be a problem in the US.

When you have nuts sticking spoons to their face, claiming to have been magnetized, and those folks are speaking with equal authority and to as broad of an audience as respected scientists, there's a problem.

Much more nuance that the original post, makes sense. I don't think you conveyed this in the original comment, which I conflated with effectively "They keep changing what they say, therefore they are lying, therefore I am not getting vaccinated". Granted you didn't say that, I believe that's the way I interpreted it due to hearing the same argument from a bunch of different folks. Thanks for the clarity!

I'm not really sure what you're trying to say here, it doesn't seem relevant to my comment.

My point is that using the fact that science changes as new information comes in, thus the answer science gave us yesterday may be different from the answer science gives us today.

The parent comment is using the changing conditions around vaccines, the fact that they said 1 shot, then 2 shots, now there is talk of boosters, as evidence that it was irrelevant and should be ignored. My point is that must expect any answer science provides to potentially change. If people want an answer that is unchanging, science cannot give it to them.

Adenovirus vaccines have been in use since the 70s.