CNN dislikes him, so they show short clips of him saying things that fit their narrative. I’ve watched many of his videos. He’s a common-sense skeptic, not a vaccine denier.
His opinions on vaccines - using his own words - demonstrate he is anti-vaccine. It's not just CNN; we could easily copy/paste many statements he's made undermining confidence in a large number of vaccines. https://www.factcheck.org/2023/11/scicheck-rfk-jr-incorrectl...
I've read his full interviews and I think my understanding of his thinking is pretty accurate.
No, my knowledge is not "driven by" factcheck- it's a reference site that I use as a facts aggregator to support my understanding. My knowledge is driven by my biomedical education and a constant desire to read nearly everything about medical policy at the federal level, from multiple independent sources.
I wish I could peer into your brain and somehow understand why you're so entrenched in this position. The man you are defending has repeatedly said things that prove you wrong, much less everything else.
Some of these replies are from folks who want to stir unrest and don't actually believe what they're saying.
Other folks read selectively; they skim over or ignore the statements they don't agree with.
Yet other folks are ideologically motivated and use rhetoric to convince others.
The best we can do is to counter with well-documented facts, like direct quotes, with full context, and actions taken. In this case, I believe the person we're arguing with is selectively ignoring statements that RFK has made (repeatedly).
Vaccines are powerful tools and they are not without their problems. But RFK has weaponized mistruth in pursuit of his goals.
> Vaccines are powerful tools and they are not without their problems.
That’s exactly the main point of RFK. Have you actually listened to any of his speeches from start to finish without the mainstream media’s intervention?
Where did I defend RFK? I said he’s skeptical of the healthcare industry. He has never been an anti-vaccine activist. Rather, he was an anti-COVID vaccine activist.
Anyone that takes the time to read his direct quotes and listen to his full interviews realizes he's a massive fucking idiot that should be nowhere near governance of any country, agency or otherwise. Like his remarks on autism for example being a big indicator that he knows jack and shit.
I read it as the author being passive aggressive -- they're implying the problem is parents who, instead of learning how to manage what their children can do with electronic devices, just want the government to make bad things illegal.
But, you know, we've never been able to agree as a people on what "bad things" are. So it should be, as you said, for each parent to engage in setting boundaries and being responsible.
Your analogy is faulty and doesn't hold up to the basic scrutiny.
Whoever is giving the child access is responsible, not the manufacturer. If a parent gives their child a device capable of accessing the internet with no restrictions, that's on the parent.
Pornhub is manufacturing a product and making it available to the open market, just like Jack Daniels. Jack Daniels has no responsibility to ensure a bar is only providing access to legal patrons.
In your analogy, the bar would be equivalent to a internet cafe or public library that has PCs available to patrons. Those types of businesses should definitely use physical IDs to verify patrons are of age.
To make your analogy work for Pornhub, you'd also have to argue "why shouldn't Jack Daniels have to put age-verifying instant blood tests on their bottles in case a parent puts one in their unlocked liquor cabinet?"
Because then the same concerns arise -- why should Jack Daniels be given access to my blood just to manufacture an age-restricted product? What will they do with it? Will they secure the data appropriately? How do I know it won't be used to negatively impact my future because my health insurance company doesn't like that I drank a bottle of JD?
> Whoever is giving the child access is responsible, not the manufacturer. If a parent gives their child a device capable of accessing the internet with no restrictions, that's on the parent.
Suppose a parent lets their 16 year old borrow the family car, the kid drives to a bar, and the bar serves the kid alcoholic drinks.
By your logic would that be considered the parents fault for providing the kid with a means of transport that doesn't restrict where the kid can go rather than the bar's fault for not checking that their customer could legally use their product?
> Pornhub is manufacturing a product and making it available to the open market, just like Jack Daniels. Jack Daniels has no responsibility to ensure a bar is only providing access to legal patrons.
> To make your analogy work for Pornhub, you'd also have to argue "why shouldn't Jack Daniels have to put age-verifying instant blood tests on their bottles in case a parent puts one in their unlocked liquor cabinet?"
That's a poor comparison, because with Pornhub the end user of their product gets it directly from Pornhub. With Jack Daniels most users get the product through resellers. It is the resellers that handle checking that the final sale to the end user is legal.
Users can buy directly from Jack Daniels (jackdaniels.com) and for those sales Jack Daniels does check the buyer's age.
> Pornhub is manufacturing a product and making it available to the open market, just like Jack Daniels.
Pornhub is obviously the retailer in this analogy. False equivalence fallacy.
> Jack Daniels has no responsibility to ensure a bar is only providing access to legal patrons.
In France and almost all Western countries, Brown Forman has exactly that responsibility when they are retailing to or serving the public, as the pornography vendors are now.
> Because then the same concerns arise -- why should Jack Daniels be given access to my blood just to manufacture an age-restricted product? What will they do with it? Will they secure the data appropriately? How do I know it won't be used to negatively impact my future because my health insurance company doesn't like that I drank a bottle of JD?
Ignoring your straw man, this is exactly how alcohol is treated. A third party - the state - verifies your age and issues a physical token that you must present to prove your age when purchasing alcohol. That is exactly how pornography will now will regulated in France.
> After weeks of negotiations, lawmakers said they came to a compromise with the towing industry.
Maybe just phrasing, but I hate the idea that we have to compromise our laws with private companies that only have to maximize shareholder value. If a law that treats the public fairly also puts tow companies out of business, so be it.
Yeah, one of their former eng managers said the same
> The post carefully avoids calling this an “Our Incredible Journey” moment, but removing project hosting and user profiles is the end of Glitch as a platform. What’s left is essentially a redirect service with some backlinks (hosted on the Fastly Edge Compute Platform™, naturally). You can’t spin the removal of the core product as anything other than what it is: a shutdown.
Its limiting to dismiss a tool out of hand simply because you haven't encountered a situation where that tool would be useful.
Plenty of web sites allow the end-user to select colors[1], or automatically derive colors from assets provided by the end-user. For those that care about accessibility, they typically calculate contrasting colors to prevent the user from creating a non-accessible experience. A built-in CSS tool like this will, hopefully, encourage more sites to provide a basic amount of accessibility while in no way hindering those who want to build an even better experience.
It would be cool if this was more customizable like the npm contrast-color package but the blog post details why they started with white/black with intentions of changing the algorithm later.
Yep. A simple use case I had was letting users create "tags" and choose their own color for the chips (think Github PR tags like "good-first-issue" "bugs" but custom)
I'm surprised parent hasn't come across this usage, I see it everywhere.
Google Maps and Waze are already causing this without the toll. In my town, you'll always be routed down two residential, 25 mph roads to avoid the congested part of Main St.
My town combatted this by allowing free parking on the bypass on both sides. Now it is practically a single lane road and you will hate every second you spend on it if you don't live there.
Have you considered you have cause-and-effect backwards? Any human advancement hurts the planet and then the burden is on environmentalists to bring awareness?
Why would a for-profit not hurt the environment for more profit if it isn't illegal and won't get them sued (for more than they profited)? There's a rich history of them doing exactly that. Similarly, governments have done horrific environmental damage and it was up to environmentalists to create the awareness to make it stop.
I honestly don't know how you can look at a world with record numbers of wildfires, communities fighting over water supplies, and for-profit companies say that water beyond subsistence levels isn't a human right and think "oh yeah, environmentalists are looking for a reason why this water-consuming thing is bad".
Especially when the same technology could be powered in a way that doesn't pollute as much and cooled in a way that doesn't consume as much water -- if only the environment was more important than shareholders.
Like I said I’m on your team and extremely pro environment. I just see media alarmism in this issue and think there are more important things to focus on.
but I’m willing to ask:
what’s your data on how water is being used improperly on these data centers? And what is the documented harm? Are plants and animals downstream of a data center dying from lack of water?
Also keep in mind the funny thing about water alarmism is that even after water is used it stays in earths water cycle. Watering crops returns to aquifers. Evaporated water rains down somewhere else. It’a not like oil we used once and it’s gone.
You commented on an article that contains data and said it was alarmist. From my perspective, that means you're not even open to hearing data because you've already decided. If you had problems with the data provided, you would have refuted it instead of resorting to ad hominem attacks.
reply