The study says that 22% of people with Ivermectin got severe problems, but only 17% of all those that got the standard medical "all the things" did. That's actually pretty interesting, because, it means that if you go to Tractor Supply and hook yourself up with the drops, then, you've got a 78% chance of not developing severe COVID for like, $20. By contrast, if you spend thousands of dollars on prescribed steroids and experimental drugs, then, your odds are only 5% better. That premium for that extra 5% is rather telling, because if you believe that ivermectin is junk, then, what this study really says is that all that extra money for the "good stuff" is basically wasted. That's actually the real complaint underlying this controversy. Exorbitantly expensive treatments actually only provide marginal value over stupid things. There is really nothing or little that medical science can do for you in some cases except charge you (or the public, for those on national health insurances), a titanic amount of money for things that basically provide false hope and don't actually work. The numbers don't lie - 17% of the people doing what the doctor said still got into trouble, versus the 22% who just went and got the same stuff they use to keep their livestock going. Yeah, you can rail on about how these people are stupid, but, if you look at the way they evaluate the odds, they are doing a damned better job than you are!

What's to stop a site that sees you have turned it off from blocking you? If enough sites block you out unless you allow tracking then being able to turn it off is useless.

Nope, your bad planning. If everyone didn't do this or do that is a ridiculous plan. You have to have a plan that understands that many people are not going to do "the thing", and manage it. HIV and the war on drugs and all of that had ridiculed proponents that just said "just don't use needles, have gay sex, and don't start on addictive drugs". That totally did not work, because people used needles, had gay sex that was unprotected, and started on addictive drugs. What do you do? Knowing this, one would have thought a credible public health plan for COVID would have considered that as part of its model making, but no, it did not.

That's actually why the public health failure. Planners can never plan in a free society that "everyone" will do the thing. A good plan is one that manages a society where everyone doesn't.

Hawala always provided the kind of money transfer services that cryptocurrencies are specifically designed for, so it's no surprise that they are in this game now.

As usual, though, this take on hawala focuses on drug trade, and completely ignores the fact that it's also the system used for routine long distance transfers between family members etc.

Why build roads if they're getting bombed into rubble every decade?

I love how it's mostly self-entitled Westerners who never had to deal with an oppressive government extolling the virtues of monetary regulation here.

Russians, meanwhile, lived through a default and a bunch of reforms that were borderline fraud (like the govt giving one weekend to exchange the old banknotes for the new). Ransomware is peanuts in comparison.

The math and the physics is beyond me (you can't just use the old classical error detection/correction techniques we currently lose.) But from what I've read, there are ways to remove the errors - quantum error correction is an active field of research. The higher the accuracy you get the smaller the number of qubits you need to add to your system to handle the errors.

It really depends on how radical you want to get. If your only reason to not run your own email server is the lack of free time and/or desire to administer it, then maybe consider Helm ( https://thehelm.com?

I can think of plenty of small businesses with fewer than 10 employees who need access.

How about "fuck them both"?

The irony is that the left wing has been a bunch of seditionist traitors for a hundred years, and, suddenly now they have a new found piety. It's just so hyprocritical its nauseating. It's not like liberals just spent the previous summer, I mean decades, burning down American cities and de-railing any public or private initiative for human benefit they see until they get communism.

I'm guessing he's talking about Pauling's belief in taking megadoses of vitamin C. Seems like all the experiments have shown that it doesn't really help. Looks like the body has a certain amount of vitamin C that it wants and it will just expel anything over that

That's silly. First off, most people pay to have sex, in some way, rather than expect to get paid for it. Europe has had cradle to the grave services for decades and the one constant there is the birth rate is the worst on the planet. By contrast Africa has a soaring birth rate and much of the continent is third world.

If you have to pay people to screw, you've already got much bigger problems on your hands, and social services isn't going to fix it.

Honestly, when it comes down to the brass tacks, is, any time you have a society that is sufficiently wealthy, women are going to want more out of life and raise their price for it, and men simply are not going to want to pay it, and so they don't. Seriously, if you are a guy, what would you rather do, run the risk of being the next me-too, go through a bunch of rejections, invest all this time into getting a halfway almost cool girlfriend, or even a wife, and then, when you do, run the 50-50 chance of having your life be destroyed in a divorce... or just fire up World of Warships and count your 401k earnings later on?

For younger men, the pursuit of women is just too much work and there's too much risk and no payoff. Remember, even in the days when women were basically property, you still had families paying the men to be married to them, and you expect, gosh, with less value and more bills, what is going to happen?

You can call it what you will, misogyny, whatever, but the numbers don't lie. Men are bailing on married society, if not society altogether. It's just too much of a pain for some people.

A simple solution to this is to ditch copyright terms altogether, but tax copyright (and other forms of intellectual property) like we tax real estate. Then copyrights will only last for as long as sufficient profit can be made to sustain them, and content will fall into public domain immediately after.

Better yet, make the tax progressive over time, starting with zero for the first few years (to give author some time to market it), and then exponentially increasing. This would reflect the lost (to the commons) value of directly or indirectly derived works that would have being created if not for copyright restrictions - since every potential derived work would itself be the basis for more works, this value grows exponentially over time.