If any of the alternative search engines would offer this and a feature to block pages with affiliate links--like those "review" sites--I would be happy to pay for them. They need to offer ways to customize the search experience.
It is possible to agree that content creators should be paid and that ads are bad. Substack, for example, allows you to pay and doesn't have ads. Ads are one business model, not the only one.
Thanks to the magic of modus tollens, absence of evidence can indeed be evidence of absence. "A 100kt nuclear bomb just went off in your front yard!" Me, looking out the window, nope. It depends, of course, on the argument being made. It could be true in some cases.
As cliches go this one is better than "you can't prove a negative"--not true. At least the "evidence of absence" one makes you think about causality and the nature of evidence.
If you look out the window, that is evidence. If you are heard to have reported looking out the window, that is itself evidence, because vaporized people don't report.
So, not an example. But, actually checking should be expected before proclaiming "no evidence". And, before parroting claims where there really is no evidence.
Until as recently as 2000, hospitals were routinely injecting quite large amounts of mercury-based neurotoxic disinfectant (thiomersal) into infants, when they got a dozen simultaneous vaccinations each preserved with the stuff. They stopped putting it into American vaccines about then, without admitting it had caused any harm. AFaIK it is still used in vaccines sent to poor countries. (Thiomersal is, anyway, excreted pretty quickly.)
There's no evidence it caused harm. For example, quoting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thiomersal#Toxicology - "the World Health Organization has concluded that there is no evidence of toxicity from thiomersal in vaccines and no reason on safety grounds to change to more expensive single-dose administration"
> They stopped putting it into American vaccines about then
Because American worry warts were induced into a false panic by a fraud pushing a false connection between vaccinations and autism, leading to a specific belief that the mercury in thiomersal was the main factor.
The US authorities believed the precautionary response of removing thiomersal would increase public confidence in the vaccination system, even without solid evidence that it caused a problem. (The evidence by comparing autism in the US with a country that didn't use thiomersal was that thiomersal did not have a contributing effect.)
The US can do this because it has the money that a poorer country does not.
However, this precautionary removal caused people like you to believe the authorities were hiding a connection.
See https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm4826a3.htm for the stated reason. (" There is a significant safety margin incorporated into all the acceptable mercury exposure limits. Furthermore, there are no data or evidence of any harm caused by the level of exposure that some children may have encountered in following the existing immunization schedule. Infants and children who have received thimerosal-containing vaccines do not need to be tested for mercury exposure.")
> when they got a dozen simultaneous vaccinations each preserved with the stuff
However, the CDC link points out "Some but not all of the vaccines recommended routinely for children in the United States contain thimerosal". https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/concerns/thimerosal/index.... says MMR, Varicella, IPV, and pneumococcal conjugate vaccines have never contained thimerosal, which are 3 of the 11.
It did not, in fact, cause "people like me" anything.
But the topic here is standards of evidence. Before injecting a substantial quantity of neurotoxic material into newborns, the burden of proof should be on you to demonstrate that it does not cause any harm.
That it appears not to cause epidemic autism, particularly, is not the same as causing no harm. Being seen to pretend that it is the same inspires reasonable distrust. It reasonably leads one to think that you are pulling a fast one, because you, in fact, are.
Demonstrating lack of a particular harm might take the form of showing how large a dose, or or how long an exposure at the dose newborns get (e.g., by continuous administration, matching excretion rate), is needed to cause that exact harm.
There are a great many ways that a neurotoxin could cause harm. Identifying one that it does not cause is absolutely different from showing none of the other possible ones occur. Pretending otherwise reliably demonstrates dishonesty, and inspires well-earned distrust. Making fun of people inspired to well-earned distrust inspires more.
Earning trust after actively courting distrust may not be achievable. The fault for that is on people like you.
You need to demonstrate that the advantages are worth the harm.
> Before injecting a substantial quantity
And as I quoted, the stated view is that the amount of thiomersal was NOT a "substantial quantity."
> It reasonably leads one to think that you are pulling a fast one
Which is why PR efforts to throw shade on the US voting system - despite evidence to the contrary - gets transformed into false belief that the US voting system is corrupt to the core.
Which is why PR efforts to cast doubt on the negative effects of smoking, and on the negative effects on profligate fossil fuel consumption, are effective.
But that doesn't actually mean someone's pulling a fast one, only that people are trying to convince you that someone's pulling a fast one.
> The fault for that is on people like you.
You must also do your part and not make easily dismissed exaggerations, or omit important qualifiers, as else your entire point will be easily dismissed.
"The point of experts is they have thought about a field more and are better at making sound arguments in that field."
This is an excellent point. It is so good that I think it may serve as the definition of an expert: An expert is someone who is better at making sound arguments in that field. Sound arguments being what matters and not the person making the argument, just as the calculations matter more than the mathematician.
I agree with you. The idea that using e-prime makes one's writing more clear isn't a "fallacy". People might disagree but it's hardly fallacious. There are many items in this list that aren't fallacies (e.g., "Dog-Whistle Politics"). This list seems to be a mix of actual fallacies and "Things I don't like".
If it is a fallacy we should be able to construct a simple argument from it. With the "Be-verb Fallacy" what would that be? Perhaps, "You used e-prime in your argument but all people who use e-prime are part of a cult, therefore you are part of a cult (and are wrong)." That's a fallacy all right just not the "Be-verb" one.
I also found the definition of a fallacy at the start lacking. It conflates good argumentation with rhetorical technique. I prefer T. Edward Damer's definition from my old logic textbook:
"A good argument must have premises that are true or acceptable, premises that are relevant to the truth of the conclusion, and premises that together constitute good or adequate grounds for the truth of the conclusion." Fallacious arguments violate one or more of these three principles.
For your home network DNS: a server with dnsmasq -> stubby -> DNS over TLS -> NextDNS works quite well. Fast with dnsmasq caching and reasonably secure, plus NextDNS can block unwanted domains (ads, malware, etc.)
After many years working with these tools I agree. Declarative and template DSLs are OK for basic things but you quickly bump into their limitations when you want to do advanced configurations. At this point administrators should know how to code so being able to use a normal programming language with IaC modules should be the standard.
Amazon's CDK for AWS is a step in the right direction. Microsoft's new Bicep for Azure misses the mark in my view because it is yet another DSL and not a real programming language.
