When I see comments like this, I always suspect there are probably other reasons why a person might be banned or ghosted or rate limited or whatever. I'll spend 5 seconds looking at their profile history and, well, let's just say I'm never too surprised.
Yeah; I'd go further and say that monetizing user data and non-consensual tracking should be illegal, full stop.
Yes, that would destroy a few incumbents' business models. No, it wouldn't be the end of Google's ad business.
According to multiple press releases I've seen, blocking tracking makes ads and marketing about 30% less effective. As a society, that'd mean some combination of increasing ad impressions by 30% and reducing total ad spend (since currently marginal ad campaigns will become unprofitable).
That sounds completely acceptable to me, especially if it frees up smart people to work on stuff that actually benefits society in some way.
> In 2014, display advertisers started concentrating on large, walled, social networks. The indie “blogosphere” was disappearing. Mobile impressions, which produce significantly fewer clicks and engagements, began to really dominate the market. Invasive user tracking (which we refused to do) and all that came with that became pervasive, and once again The Deck was back to being a pretty good business. By 2015, it was an OK business and, by the second half of 2016, the network was beginning to struggle again.
The question is more of, in 2022 can we still do online advertising without personalization and tracking, in a way that's profitable?
> The question is more of, in 2022 can we still do online advertising without personalization and tracking, in a way that's profitable?
Sure we can. We need to legislate personalised tracking to give more oxygen in the room for companies like Deck, who want to advertise without having to track to stay competitive.
The solution in an arms race of a competitive ad market is to either keep escalating, or de-nuclearise. With enough legislation, we can achieve the latter.
Table 1 tells us that there were 6 total Omicron-period deaths while hospitalized in the fully vaccinated group. It is almost certainly a single death. It's conceivable that it's two deaths, but more than that appears mathematically impossible.
Unless I'm reading the report wrong, it's from a single hospital. We shouldn't be taking any lessons from such a limited dataset as there are far too many possible confounding factors that would be ameliorated in a larger dataset from more hospitals.
This, and I don't understand why there isn't more scrutiny from the moderators. Especially the one-day old accounts are the most annoying part. If you have hottakes at least have the curtousy to do it with your primary account so we know who to ignore afterwards.
If your “opinion” is contrary to observable facts and puts others in danger, yes. Pretty straightforward actually. Those posting this nonsense ignore the facts, so ignoring them seems prudent.
"puts others in danger", "threat to public security", "views incompatible with society" have been used by authoritarians to excuse their actions since forever.
>If your “opinion” is contrary to observable facts
I'm sure that is the same reason why many once people believed the earth was flat, or that the earth was at the center of the universe.
It's very arrogant to think that "the science" and "the facts" are always right. Any scientist worth their money understands the importance of challenging the status quo. Unfortunately nowadays, especially on the topic of COVID, challenging the status quo is enough to be considered a pariah by narrow-minded people like yourself.
> I'm sure that is the same reason why many once people believed the earth was flat, or that the earth was at the center of the universe.
Observably at the time, the earth was flat, and then you got better ways to observe it, and it was spherical. Then you got even better ways, and now it's an oblate spheroid.
That doesn't negate the science used before, but it gets more correct each iteration.
Asimov described this wonderfully in a letter, below:
This should be part of our discourse going forward about transparency in clinical trials, but you do not need to rely on this data to make a rational decision to take the vaccine. There is loads of evidence from many different countries now, and there is enough granular evidence to weigh the potential downsides as well (i.e. take the lower dose mRNA if you’re young)
Can people make a rational decision of balancing out their personal risks then? For a young and healthy person there is little upside in taking a dose of mRNA
Yes, based on your personal risk. The vaccine substantially decreases your risk of severe disease from SARS-CoV-2 infection, even if you think that is a low baseline risk.
As a young person this comes with a slightly elevated risk of myocarditis, which can be mitigated by taking BNT (30 ug dose) or a half dose of moderna (50 dose). The UK study being discussed elsewhere in here estimates that risk (for young people) on par with risk of myocarditis from SARS-CoV-2 infection
If you have had a confirmed infection in the past then you have some immunity so the calculus is a bit different. Probably you should still get one vaccine dose, especially if your infection was pre-omicron
My main point is, there is plenty of data available for people to make this assessment for themselves, and holding out for FDA release is not going to provide meaningfully better insight into this risk assessment
Even if you don't want to and even if you are a hermit in the mountain you are still part of the society. Your decision is not personal it never was and there are now protein based vaccines available so at least you can't use the mrna cop out anymore.
60% seems quite high, given that the CDC director says that the vaccines cannot prevent transmission anymore, but I haven't seen any confirmed numbers for Omicron transmission so far.
I despise smokers, fat goblins as much as antivaxxers like you. The whole argument about preventing transmission is only 2-3 months old what was the hesitation for the rest of the 1 1/2 years we have vaccines available? Cop out after cop out :)
Not antivaxer, had my jab recently. I just respect other people's choice. Science has been settled a bit too many times in the last two years so I can understand some degree of distrust
I like how I can figure out your hobbies by omissions. Have fun riding and drinking, not at the same time though ;)
Yeah, assumptions, slight of hand remarks at least you are sticking to the stereo type. Thankfully I never have to deal with people like you in a real rnd environment. surplus people.
There are enough idiots like you in this threads that spread lies or comment stupid shit like "If YoUr OpInIoN iS dIfFerEnT fRoM mInE, i WiLl IgNoRe YoU" that I don't want myself to be associated with them or you so you are absolutely right. You are ignored.
We've banned this account for repeatedly breaking the site guidelines and ignoring our request to stop. It's not ok to post like this to HN, regardless of how wrong someone else is or you feel they are.
If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future. They're here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
That vaccine data really seems suspicious! (Can I get vote privileges back now?)