Space Coyote

It's has been 7 years, if "any" entrepreneur could step in and do it they would have done it already. If a business model that last 7 years and is still going is "doomed to fail" I know plenty of people that would give their left nut for one of these doomed to fail opportunities.

And I'm still waiting for you to admit you've fallen for the halo effect, its ok it happens to everyone. It is human nature. The bigger sin is refusing to admit it. You again literally asked how your logic is faulty and I pointed out it is a textbook example of the halo effect. Your "He is a billionaire...." argument is like saying: "Why are you asking Gordon Ramsey for advice on how to make a Beef Wellgiotion, you should ask Elon Musk he is much richer with much more access to the best ingredients ".I don't care what Elon Musk's opinion is on infectious disease is for the same reasons I don't care. what Anthony Fauci opinion on space exploration is. Elon Musk is swerving wildly out of his lane if he is talking about infectious disease as would Fauci if he started talking about space exploration. It is illogical to care what Elon Musk thinks about a topic outside his domain of mastery. It only seems logical due to the halo effect. Note I bolded, underlined, and italics illogical (twice now). I never said to you whether I believe Elon or you are wrong; faulty logic (which is what you asked) does not mean your conclusions are wrong nor does perfect logic means your conclusion are right; believing these would also be illogical. Assuming Elon Musk is a 100% right "billionaire who put a car in space and has access to a lot of privileged info" is still textbook halo effect.

No, I did what you literally asked. Don't get mad at me because you don't like the thing you literally asked for.

*SIgh* We might as well rename the halo effect the Elon Musk effect.

"Noise" is an actual statistical concept that can be quantified. "Crappy" is your personal subjective unquantifiable opinion. Not the same thing not by a long shot. That you don't know the difference yet want to speak on this subject that is inexcusable. The high level of noise is a functional of the high amount of data collected, difficult to short thought but it also helps catch real cases sooner than a less noisy system would. Noisy is not "bad" in this context it a know tradeoff vs a more filtered less noisy but also less sensitive system. Agin crappy is your personal subjective unquantifiable opinion. That "crappy" system successfully detected a one in amillion blood clotting issue with the J&J vaccine. Not crappy in my opinion. To repeat being able to detected it such a low case number is why we willingly knowingly intentionally accept the high noise level of the VAERS. The tradeoffs seems to be working just fine. You keep saying the hammer is crappy because you keep trying to drive a screw with it, not its function. No I don't. It your job for you to write what you mean, you chose to use hyperbolic alarmist language and still are. No one has pointed out methodological flaws in these studies worth of using scary quotes around the word trial as you have. No point outing "no long term studies" and using scary quotes when discussing existing trials are not the same thing, it is misleading. We don't have good long term data, we do have "good" (again subjective opinion) continuously improving short term data. My suggestion to fix that problem start with the man in the mirror. I should not in fact accept "no trials" as a reasonable way of saying "no long term trials" as you claim I should. You on the other hand should in fact know what is meant by "noise" in the statistical since. This is not a vaccine stance by the way. It is about basic communication standards for scientific works under no circumstances do I find it be acceptable to say "no trials" if the reality is "multiple trials but no long trials" or "trials but trials I don't thrust for x and y reason". To that end this is my last post to you, like I said basic communication standards If we can't agree on this we effectively speak two different languages.

No I never said VAERS data is crappy I said it is noisy but it works extremely well at it's intended purpose. The link above I already gave has multiple examples of how well it works in conjunction with all the other tools we have at our disposable. You keep acting like VAERS is the only tool in the box. VAERS is not the tool used to render a final conclusion, all the other tools and data however are. False. 100% not true. Emergency authorization doesn't mean without trial, that is a myth. Even an EUA still requires trials to be completed , and they were as of November for the pfizer for example. Further trials have concluded with the same result as the trials used for the EUA, even more trials are on going etc. etc. WE are NOT just doing post-marketing surveillance, YOU are choosing to misuse a surveillance tool to justify a narrative of "we don't know enough about these vaccine". Ya if I missed the biggest news story of Nov. 2020 (which was again pfizer completing the trials you say weren't done,) and keep trying to use the wrong tools for the job I might think that too.

Generally speaking experience trumps all. if your already in the field your putting your ability to market your experiences vs someone elses ability to market their experience. A degree in most cases won't enhances this enough to be worth the prices tag, but that depends on a lot of variables. Learning how to market yourself better for example will likely yield better result for much less investment. If you must due some "formal" education look in to certs for your specialty. They are cheaper and IT moves fast a cert are typically more update since they require renewal then a degree where the relevant stuff might be outdated before you even walk out the door (I'm CCNA certified by the way).

I am. These articles are a complete misuse of the VAERS database. It is an incredibly noisy system that requires stacticaly trained experts to interpret. https://www.politifact.com/article/2021/may/03/vaers-governments-vaccine-safety-database-critical/ 3, 500 claims in an online unverified form that someone died for any reason soon after taking a vaccine is not the same of there being 3;500 deaths due to vaccination. The point of VAERS is to get a heads up on what we need to take a closer look, we have and the result are: To date, VAERS has not detected patterns in cause of death that would indicate a safety problem with COVID-19 vaccines The data in context is evidence of us having incredible safe vaccines against covid.

Pure fear mongering (at least as far as the US goes). We already know what mandatory vaccination looks like, it is not having to show vaccines to go to any social events. It pointless to ask for an opinion on something so unlikely to happen. The idea is floated around in the media yes, but the media has a lot of ideas. Find me a law that is actually proposing this, you can't, indeed it's the opposite some states have passed laws forbidden business from requiring it already. While allowing the opposite, places refusing to hire the vaccinated can for now continue to discriminate against the vaccinated. Note: since this prohibits schools from requiring it (bad idea imo), but schools can and do require other vaccine. We are actually leaning in the opposite direction of all this dystopian fear mongering we as of now are undermining vaccination powers when it comes to covid not increasing it.

You do realize we already have "vaccine passports" right? I can go right now I get the card my parents had to show all my schools before they'd let me in their doors. It is already mandatory to be vaccinated for many many things: elementary school, high school, university, travel, immigration, etc. We are not making new rules for covid were adding it to the list of thing we already require documentation for. This you'll need one to go to the supermarket slippery slope hasn't happened with any other mandatory vaccine no reason to think it'll happen with this one. Note: It is not that we as a society don't believe you need certain vaccinations to be in public, we as a society assume you are vaccinated against certain things when going out in public due to all the existing vaccination gates already in place. Again using all the other vaccines as president making supermarkets gatekeepers would be impractical and unnecessary. The only thing that is likely change is that it may become more efficient and easier for people to do what they already have to do. An app would have made my life much easier last time I had to present proof of vaccination for example. The slippery slope can cuts both ways....streamlined document for important paperwork is not an inherently bad thing. What if this makes all our lives easier? The smart question is not if "vaccine passport" we've had that for decades, it how we create the best vaccine passport system...because our current one could be improved a bit. The most likely outcome in my opinion however is no major improvement or worsen of the system everything keeps working the same and one more checkbox gets added to all the lists of mandatory vaccinations already in place.

Every single personal development coach in the world: "The world owes you nothing" Natural selection: "Survival of the fittest" . Both man and nature agree you do actually have to "earn" your pussy. You know Like everything in life worth getting you don't deserve it by merely existing. This is not a bug this is a feature. There is nothing "realistic" about going against a key principle of all sexual mating systems.

Don't get me wrong I get your point but that's not the greatest example to be honest. I am a manger at a Walgreens. If I took the bag of chips away from a shoplifter and they got outraged I'd be the one that would get fried. Cooperates fear of bad PR/liability is that bad. If they got outraged and happened to be black and "a social media influencer" and then they would fire half the store where it happened and every single manger in the company would have to attend racial sensitivity training.....again. Company policy is bend over and take it always provide extraordinary customer care no matter what, There is no situation were a manager can take the bag away from a shoplifter with out the manager risking serious terminatable trouble in the current environment. Of course not every retail company is the same but at least in some case this example kind of backfires because if you know a bank that treats homeowners the way we treat shoplifters please give me their name

Very reasonable explanation once rioters begin storming the building, but do you believe it was inevitable to let it get to the point of having to fall back in the first place? It would seem a larger security presence from the start would have keep the first soft line from being stormed in the first place. Or do you believe that too would be seen as coming down hard on the rioters? Also, unless the amount of security people behind the real line was much higher than it seems I don't see how they chould have held it if the mob was more committed to an all out seige. Work of fiction but it came to my mind "history is filled with stories of great sieges, but sieges don't make the history books because the smaller force won they make history because the smaller force fought well before being killed". The optics at least are of the capitol police coming uncomfortably close to being that smaller force. How likely would you say that the optics are misleading and the real line was actually much better defended than it seems? Again the raw numerical advantage of the insurgents look to my untrained eye to be too great to effectively counter had they kept advancing without capitol police having numerical reinforcement of their own at the ready (which doesn't seem to be the case). Do you disagree?

So he says while quoting a left leaning source covering the supposedly suppressed dissent. Your own posts can't even keep up an internally consistent illusion of right-wing prosecution.

A much needed contrast to the gross taking selfie with rioters cop. An amazing display of not just bravery but situational awareness and judgment in a life and death situation. His quick thinking may have averted a catastrophe from occurring.