Maybe you ought to pay more attention to what it actually says instead of getting upset at what is obviously a generalization about the overreaction to COVID when it comes to young children-
>A smaller subset of states reported on hospitalizations and mortality by age; the available data indicate that COVID-19-associated hospitalization and death is uncommon in children.
That's just one report that mentions 75% with an underlying medical condition.
When people say it doesn't kill kids they're generalizing, flagging it as misinformation is completely silly. By percentages and how we react to every other virus this is NOT something we should be scared of when it comes to children. We certainly shouldn't be subjecting children to measures that may cause psychological and developmental harm for something that's VERY unlikely to be a threat to them.
Thanks for bringing in that hard data. I don't understand why the news media keeps saying "thank goodness kids can get vaccinated now!". Why are they trying to normalize annual or 2x a year shots for these kids, who are more likely to suffer from myocarditis as a result than to actually contract or get ill from this virus? Nobody freaking knows.
>Asymptotically spreading COVID has been discussed and documented all over the world. I don’t believe this question is in good faith.
Then you should easily be able to back that up with data. So please provide it. Hypothesis are not evidence. I have plenty of evidence that shows the opposite.
Have fun. If you'd like more to keep you busy let me know :).
>Some people would like to spend time with their families this Christmas without having to worry about their children being vectors for a fucking plague that has now mutated to dodge the vaccine.
Normal people will not be wearing masks to Christmas. Why would we worry about children being vectors? "The science" doesn't back this up and even if it did there's a vaccine for it. Are you confused about how the vaccine works? If COVID is this big of a deal then you should just avoid Christmas and leave the rest of us alone. Why are you venturing out if it affects you that much? I have a hard time believing you're acting in good faith when it comes to stopping COVID infection and then talking about social gatherings. It appears that you just want to control others.
>Wear a mask ffs so we can move on with our lives.
Massive strawman happening here.
I've already moved on with my life.. That happened like year ago when everyone was able to get the vaccine if they wished. You have health anxiety, get it treated please and stop turning your personal fears into authoritarian rhetoric you think you have the right to shove down other people's throats.
That's one link vs several I gave you. Are you implying that your science is better than mine? Why? What standard proves this? All of the links I gave you are peer reviewed studies. You've proved nothing.
I'll choose my studies over yours. You're just bloviating cult like adherence to "the science".
Social media companies are trying too hard. People just want a chronological feed of things they followed. Nothing more. Stop trying to add shit people don't want.
Hacker News is not representative of the population at large. If people in fact do not like this, engagement will drop, and they'll stop doing it. It turns out most people in the silent majority actually do like this, or are at least more engaged/addicted because of it.
I think the way the docs introduce functional components (destructure the props argument right away) sets you up for success with TypeScript. The main ways to get started that they recommend (CodeSandbox, CRA, next.js) let you add typescript down the line with no hassle, so you don't loose out by starting without it. Seems better to teach people one thing at a time. React with TypeScript really doesn't look all that different and if you just drop what they teach you into an existing TS project, it will work ok.
An official "Using React with Typescript" doc that shows good patterns for typing props and state would be nice though.
As an FYI for later reference, Lenz Weber has a Remark plugin that compiles TS to JS in code samples - we use that in the Redux Toolkit docs. I think Orta Therox may have something similar going on with his "Shiki Twoslash" tooling, but not entirely sure.
We've banned this account for repeatedly breaking the site guidelines. 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.
1984 - "people who want to deny me my rights as a human being, including the right to life"
Brave New World - "people who want to ensure I have my rights protected, and my wellbeing"
Just an alternative way to imagine it. Either side is fine IMO. The world runs more on how/where you spend your money/energy than where you place your vote (also an opinion).
Worse than those 5% who are terrified of the crazies on the other side are the reductionist windbags who provide them with simple, concise, contrived talking points intended to gin up more hate for the other side by making everyone on the other side as bad as the worst among them.
Please don't pretend that there are only two sides. Both Democrat and Republican office-holders have continuously supported ruinous murderous military adventurism for decades now. In this, they are opposed by we pacifists.
I’m not saying that the sides are the same, I am saying that the two parties we have in the US are both spineless.
The people who want to ensure you have your rights protected will flip and turn on you if it can be part of a plot to smear the other party as evil villains.
The people who want to deny you your rights will tolerate you and not actually do anything to deprive you of your rights, once that 5% shifts and they can no longer use your putative rights as a crowbar to open up a floodgate of hatred towards the other party.
Like I really mean to say that slavery was only a partial cause of the US Civil War. It was a central cause. But it could only be a cause because there was a “powder-keg” atmosphere already in the air. And the reason I know this is because Southerners are emphatically not looking back at the Civil War saying “Those Northerners took our damn slaves away!”—which is what you would here if this was a True Cultural Touchstone—but rather “No our parents weren’t fighting for slavery, they were fighting for States’ Rights.” You don’t put lipstick on a pig if you’re proud of that pig. Slavery was considered South-Identity at the time, but it was revealed to be totally unnecessary to have Southern values, and now US Southerners would prefer to see their ancestors having died for their actual present-values, not their stated past-values.
And the party who brought them there—the Democrats—have since decided that they are now the party of civil rights. So if we discovered that Southern Culture did not contain something that folks thought was such a bedrock principle that they were willing to die for it, and that shocks us, what should shock us even more is that the Democratic Party cannot possibly have any sort of shared principles from then to now.
It cannot have a spine, not because politicians must be spineless, but because our divide-everything-into-First-Past-the-Post-seats election strategy actively makes having a spine into a competitive disadvantage. If the Democrats actually had a spine and stuck to their racist guns during the intervening years, they would have gradually lost members to the Republican Party at which point the Republican Party would have had an internal rift into two spineless parties, one of which would rapidly accumulate the old Democrats. I know this because this happened before: there was a political party called the Whigs that was very principled around an economic system of protectionist tariffs and did not take a clear stand against slavery at a time when that was becoming that 5% issue. The Democrats used this to get a pro-slavery Northerner as President, a bunch of alienated folks in the party started the Republican party to be anti-slavery, and that was the end of the Whigs.
They are not the same. But they also have no fixed identities. Most of the country is made up of moderates saying “I don’t agree with the folks in ‘my’ party but you should see the crazy ideas of ‘the other guys’, I have to vote _____.”
We can fix it if you become really vocal about switching the House to a proportionate system. If you can take a step back from “I hate them” please tell everybody you can, whenever you can, about our need for a proportionate system where parties have principles and we are not defined by the things that make us see each other into as evil fucks.
Unless those rights include free speech, freedom of association, right to bear arms, free exercise of religion, freedom of contract, just compensation for takings, right to local governance, etc.
>people who want to ensure I have my rights protected, and my wellbeing.
That's a funny way of saying "deny you of different rights you just don't happen to care about exercising so you're blind to the fact they want you to lose them".
Both parties cater heavily to the "there ought to be a law" type of jerks and only ever pay lip service to individual liberties and human rights.
What rights are you referring to? Are those actual rights, or make-believe rights specifically conjured up to discriminate against minorities and groups you don't agree with?
The process of the scientific method involves making conjectures (hypotheses), deriving predictions from them as logical consequences, and then carrying out experiments or empirical observations based on those predictions.[5][6] A hypothesis is a conjecture, based on knowledge obtained while seeking answers to the question. The hypothesis might be very specific, or it might be broad. Scientists then test hypotheses by conducting experiments or studies. A scientific hypothesis must be falsifiable, implying that it is possible to identify a possible outcome of an experiment or observation that conflicts with predictions deduced from the hypothesis; otherwise, the hypothesis cannot be meaningfully tested.[7]
It's interesting that you chose to wiki-splain the scientific method in response to ... what? The notion of anthropogenic climate change? The accusation of being a denier?
Whatever, the reason that's interesting is that an increase in the frequency and severity of "anomalous" weather events is, in point of fact, one of the chief falsifiable predictions of the climate scientists whose work you dismiss.
Everyone always points to the hyper-specific, obviously catastrophic, missed predictions for which, e.g., Al Gore is probably most infamous as a failure of the models [0], when one of the main things they actually, specifically, said would (would, not could) happen, as more energy was added to the atmosphere ... is happening.
[0] The thing about those predictions, which I think the people watching in good faith assumed (on the basis that they were, you know, explicitly thusly disclaimed) is that they were known worst-case, hypothetical for illustrative purposes kinds of deals — which, yes, was a terribly dumb move, given how those predictions were taken, and have been pilloried since.
"It's interesting that you chose to wiki-splain the scientific method as some sort of refutation of ... what? The notion of anthropogenic climate change? The accusation of being a denier?"
When you discuss and learn about a complex scientific topic (such as climate change), do you seek to understand it on a deep level, or do you seek to over-simplify things? Do you accept that you could be wrong about your hypothesis about how the world works? Do you accept that even experts are often wrong about complex systems, such as nutrition, psychology, gravitational physics, etc. That's what the null hypothesis of the scientific method is all about.
So framing someone as a denier is pretty loaded and has an air of righteousness that betrays the spirit of science in general, would you agree? You could be wrong. I could be wrong.
Science is messy. Sometimes a centuries old theory is overturned by new revelations. Climate science is far from settled and far from mature.
The climate is a complex, multivariate system. The earth's climate is affected by axial tilt, precession, solar magnetic activity (which itself is influenced by complex internal double dynamo thermal activity), cosmic ray activity (which itself varies in relation to where our solar system is in the galaxy), low cloud cover albedo, snow cap albedo, earth-sun distance, total solar irradiance, 6 greenhouse gases of varying composition (the most important one being H2O), ocean-atmospheric interaction, trade winds, El Nino and La Nina oscillations, volcanic activity and aerosol content (driven by volcanic activity and exacerbated by cosmic rays which can cause cloud condensation nuclei to form in the low atmosphere and cool). The sun goes through solar cycles with periods of 8-11 years, 22 years, and long minimums sometimes lasting decades with little to no magnetic activity, happening every couple of centuries.
We still don't know how all of those variables (and that list is by no means exhaustive) interplay to create the climate. But to pluck out CO2, a trace gas of quantity roughly 0.04% of the atmosphere, and to over-exaggerate its effect on the system and to alarm people into believing that the planet is in danger as a result, is quite an extraordinary claim that does not align with the actual data. My hypothesis (and others) is that the solar cycles and the interplay between clouds, ocean, sun, and cosmic rays have much more to do with the resulting climate than anthropogenic CO2. Of course, I could be wrong. But then again, so could you. The framing of someone as a denier comes from a place of insecurity...not from a place of truth-seeking.
"Whatever, the thing is, an increase in the frequency and severity of "anomalous" weather events is, in point of fact, one of the chief falsifiable predictions of the climate scientists whose work you dismiss."
Which specific predictions? Because the IPCC predictions have been off for the past two decades, as far as global temps go. The closest model to predicting the pause in temps over the roughly 2000-2014 years was the INM-CM4. Droughts aren't new (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dust_Bowl), hurricanes aren't new (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1932_Bahamas_hurricane), and we've only had satellite observations of the planet since the 60s, and weather data didn't really advance until beginning in the 70s (which was the coldest decade in the 20th century).
Yes, we have warming since the 70s, that much is true. We also have been going through a solar modern maximum that is just now beginning to decrease. What percentage of the CO2 is anthropogenic and what percentage of CO2 is natural, being exhaled by the oceans as the planet warms? What amount of IR energy can CO2 retain and how does it compare the complex cooling and warming effects of H2O on the atmosphere? This we still don't know. We still have a high degree of uncertainty about the climate system. The true denier is the one who fails to admit that.
(Aside: your comment was dead, probably because it spent a while just saying "Test post". I've vouched for it, but I have plans for the evening and will be stepping away, not having read your revision.)
That may indicate something about the legitimacy of the data and conclusions the author(s) reach. Phrased another way: if the only person you can find peddling a claim is someone like Alex Jones, it is not a misuse of your mental faculties to conclude that the claim is probably wrong. Because he has a track record of regularly being wrong. It is not proof of that fact, but it is certainly an indicator.
"There are no other sources" for maps of temperature variation? What is that supposed to mean? Temperature variation is the point of this entire argument. If skeptics show me maps of temperature variation, and then enthusiasts tell me those maps are wrong, and then I ask for links to the right ones, and then enthusiasts tell me those don't exist, what am I supposed to think?
Ah, sorry - I thought you meant for the conclusions from climate4you/Climate Realists, not just the graphs. The IPCC has generated loads of plotted climate data, and I recall very similar graphics. I am on my phone but I am happy to look stuff up when I am back at a computer.
The source is NASA GISS. That site is an indirect source of the actual data. It doesn't matter that the site has a viewpoint that is different than yours. Are the facts incorrect?
We're on pace to beat the 2007 sea ice extent in the arctic and may even beat the 2009-2018 average depending on how fall and early winter go in the arctic.
Meanwhile, antarctic sea ice extent continues to hew close to average.
According that site the source is NASA GISS. At any rate are you aware that clouds and H2O have a much more dramatic effect over the environment than CO2? Are you aware that low clouds have a cooling effect and that even small changes in low cloud cover can have dramatic effects on the Earth's energy budget? Are you aware cloud cover decreased by 2-6% between 1983 and 2009?
Are you aware that climate science is an incredibly young and immature field and that we still don't have a handle on all the factors that drive climate change?
It's a nonsense argument. Companies tried to buy Google and they didn't sell. Yahoo (among others) tried to buy Facebook and they didn't sell. There will come along a startup with a visionary founder who doesn't want to sell and they will topple one of these giants with better tech.
There have been quite a few technology IPO's over the last couple years and I'm sure many of these companies were approached by incumbents but did not sell. And some of these companies will become giant slayers.
I never said there was. The public, on the other hand, isn't necessarily interested in sifting through those kinds of content on a dying platform that many people have long since moved away from. If they want to bring people back to Tumblr at this point, they either need to get rid of the perception that they're a dumping ground for porn, or they've got to completely own it. But that won't happen, because enough people remember that Tumblr tried to expunge all that stuff.
This is misinformation: https://www.aap.org/en/pages/2019-novel-coronavirus-covid-19...