This looks a lot like quackery. A miracle diet that will cure almost all ailments? Sounds too good to be true.
The author encourages parents to disregard Physician advice in favor of a vaguely formulated diet advice and expensive supplements, which the author sells. Also lots of enemas and no MMR vaccines.
It really depends on vaccination rates and the transmission rates of vaccinated people. Vaccines aren't going to reach mass distribution until February or March at the earliest. It's an open question just how much vaccination reduces low-level infection and retransmission. The published vaccine trials have been focused on incidence of symptoms and reduction in mortality in the vaccinated group.
It remains possible that the death rate may climb among the unvaccinated if others' vaccinations is used as an excuse for risky behavior.
>Also vaccinated people can still catch and transmit covid, though they are not going to experience severe symptoms.
This is stated with far too much confidence. It may be true that vaccinated individuals can still transmit COVID. It may also be true that they can't. We don't know yet.
Isn’t this a fact though (just not in the way OP meant)? The current vaccines have a ~90% success rate. That means that 1/10 people might still get COVID-19 and possibly transmit it.
The vaccine trials did not test whether people who did not get COVID-19 might nonetheless have been infectious. The assumption is that it reduces or even eliminates infectiousness but that hasn't actually been tested for AFAIK.
The statement as originally written implies that all people who are vaccinated can still transmit the disease. That may be true, but it's unlikely and we don't have enough data to say one way or the other yet.
Interesting choice of examples! Grubhub owns Seamless and bought Yelp's delivery service (formerly Eat24). Grubhub also owns AllMenus and MenuPages. So an individual restaurant has to compete with 5 different sophisticated offerings from one company for SEO position.
The op-ed pages have always been longform twitter, not journalism. The journalism and op-ed sides are different departments with no influence over the other.
The guy in this thread being downvoted clearly has a political bias but the part of his argument advocating for access to the raw original length video is reasonable.
If youtube wants to disable comments, throw up warnings or blur out gore then fine but suppressing media from a highly politically charged situation is a mistake.
> I want the truth. That's something all US media is failing to give us right now.
What truth is this you are so deprived of? I presume you have some "real" source of truth that's more reliable than media that fact-checks itself and issues corrections?
> that's more reliable than media that fact-checks itself and issues corrections
oh boy. I'm not even going to start in on this one. If you actually believe any of the "fact checks" done by your favourite news outlet, instead of going out and doing a lot of research from a bunch of different sources and viewing the full actual video of events in context, you're not getting the right picture; not even remotely the right picture.
We've never had a media that's more blatantly bias and unreliable than the one we have right now.
I would highly recommend you watch the 2019 documentary Hoaxed. You're immediately going to dismiss it when you look it up because of the people in it; which goes to show how bad current media bias is.
I don't think everything from the documentary should be taken at face value, but it's still incredibly valuable in learning how the narrative has been so insanely skewed today.
I took a watch. Honestly, it's lazy and dumb. The siloing of modern social-media justifies the behavior of Cernovic and his ilk? There is genuine propaganda being actively promoted by malign actors in our media ecosystem, but Cernovic tries to use this as an excuse for his malign promotion of propaganda and misinformation.
That movie is by and for Mike Cernovic's existing audience. It was crowd funded by his audience, produced by his production company, and promoted on far-right websites where he contributes. The producers and directors appear to be mostly info-wars style far-right propagandists. Event the glowing IMDB reviews describe it as "preaching to the choir".
The project of Hoaxed is to create false equivalency between the misdeeds of the larger media industry, and the specific business model of promoting far-right misinformation that people like Cernovic engage in.
edit: I broadly agree with this guys take on the movie [1], which he expresses at greater length and clarity than I am presently able.
Right wing propagandists flooded twitter and reddit with deceptive edits, frame grabs, and narratives. I expect there are now multiple retaliatory take down campaigns by multiple groups and bot networks to try to preserve only videos that support their preferred narrative.
I mean the NYT has the videos and very clearly shows that he acted defensively each time. I was surprised by how clearly they were willing to show that considering their bias, I didn’t really read the content around the video, but that alone was interesting. Of course the title at the time made it sound like he was guilty so...
Followup reporting indicates that he was not asked to guard the business that he was "protecting", that the business asked him and others not to get involved and they did anyway, and that he instigated the altercation with the men chasing him in the video.
Here's an interview with a reporter who was on scene and rendered aid to the first victim. He gives a minute by minute recount of what happened from his perspective.
The instigation that led to the second set of altercations isn't entirely clear.
'zoom' tells you that you can video/audio call people, 'for developers' tells you that it has features that help with development. It's quite clear for me.
We could have said "Google Meet for developers", but Zoom is shorter. :)
But yeah, the point is that you can video chat and we are adding other integrations for developers. Pair programming is one, terminal and server sharing is coming.
The very first paragraph lists one of the features as "direct integration to the IDE so software developers can talk and collaborate in real-time". It doesn't sound to me as if it's aiming to support "100+ concurrent users". If it can help two programmers working remotely be as productive as they would be if they were sitting side by side, then I think it's a very useful product.
I’ve never been on a Zoom call with 100+ users. While Zoom supports that, it’s not the main use case. I think saying “zoom for x” is an appropriate and efficient way to describe collaboration apps.
The author encourages parents to disregard Physician advice in favor of a vaguely formulated diet advice and expensive supplements, which the author sells. Also lots of enemas and no MMR vaccines.