Posts by Steve Button

Re: I never thought leopards would eat MY face...

Because he got banned from Twitter after people in the US government essentially said "Why is he still on the platform?". He then sued them and got a settlement which included being allowed back onto the platform, as he'd not said anything untrue.

You might call him an antivax nutter, but he seems to be mostly against what was an experimental gene therapy, and not even a "vaccine" by the traditional definition. This new therapy seems to have an astronomically bad safety record, so you might say he's trying to get people killed but he probably feels he's trying to save lives. Anyway, we're allowed to have that discussion. You might disagree, that's how free speech works.

Has he specifically said something that you think is misinformation, and should be taken down, or do you just feel he's a "clown of a journalist"? (even though he used to work for the New York Times)

Re: IS that what you want?

No, it doesn't. CISA is not the Police.

Re: I never thought leopards would eat MY face...

That's such a naïve attitude. The US government wasn't telling the social media companies to shut down "measurably harmful content". It was asking them why people like Alex Berenson were still on the platform because they were saying things which are "inconvenient" and go against their narrative, but were very much true. Saying things like "vaccines don't stop transmission" would get you banned from Facebook / Twitter. The only "measurably harmful content" in that case is measurably harmful to the profits of Pfizer.

There are many many other examples of the government stepping in (thousands every day) and shutting down narratives which they didn't like. This goes against free speech, at least in the US. Which is why they are being reined in a bit.

Re: wearing an antiviral face mask?

Many thanks for the reply Liam. You obviously put a lot more thought into your wording than I did with my objection.

I don't agree that he's right to mention the importance of wearing a face mask, as there's no strong scientific evidence that they make any difference. I'm sure if he'd walked in wearing healing crystals and suggested everyone else did, you wouldn't take the same position? It's got about as much scientific backing at this point. I'm surprised that someone like RMS would take that position, but Cancer is scary so perhaps...

I'm personally very biased though due to a traumatic childhood incident, so perhaps I'm looking for confirmation on my position. I do try to keep that in mind. I also have bad hearing already, and so this lecture would have been completely lost on me (as much audio has been lost on me over the last 3 years). Lastly, I really need to be able to see peoples' faces, to be able to communicate effectively. Perhaps it's just me, but I suspect not.

Remember we're hopefully talking about asymptomatic people here. If you've got a stinking cold (like I do right now, which is perhaps why I'm antsy) then you really shouldn't be at such an event. I certainly wouldn't be there spreading germs.

Re: Contraversal & Charismatic

What next? Is someone going to drag Brexit into the conversation?

Re: I'll be sticking with petrol (or diesel) for my next car.

Interesting, I didn't know that.

Re: I'll be sticking with petrol (or diesel) for my next car.

I call bullshit.

There's no way in heaven or earth you are going to get a replacement battery for hundreds. It might be fine at 50,000 miles, but it WILL conk out very badly before 100,000. My Diesel will probably be good for 250,000. At least my engine will have some scrap value. I'll have to pay to get rid of that dud battery.

I'm sorry but these scrubbers to remove the nitrogen oxides? Are they real, or just a wet dream from the Green Party? Wishful thinking? Also, hauling fossil fuels around is actually quite efficient. They pack an awful lot of power.

When that fuel mix changes, it changes the equation a bit (if you're environmentally minded) and so it changes things somewhat... for those of us that can afford it.

Re: Good for the planet?

I've jumped out of many tall buildings, and survived with no damage. From the ground floor. I've never attempted to jump off a tall building though.

Unfortunately Climate Science doesn't care about *evidence* unless it backs up the existing beliefs. Go and read the WCD, it's not that long. https://clintel.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/WCD-version-081423.pdf or even particularly radical. It's not denial, just calling for us to tap the brakes a bit.

Re: Good for the planet?

Ahh, because reasons.

Would that "reason" be that it's unpopular to be seen as a "denier" and will give us less ad revenue?

Re: Good for the planet?

I would love to provide a reference to an article in a distinguished scientific journal, but it seems they have all been captured by the religion that is Climate Science and refuse to publish anything which goes against the orthodoxy. This is not science. It was the same for Covid lockdowns and masks for a time, but that's changed since then as enough people have seen through the BS modelling. Or at least it's starting to change. Perhaps that will also happen for Climate Science, hopefully before we all become completely impoverished. Well, all the proles anyway. I'm sure Leonardo DiCaprio will still have enough money to take a luxury yacht or private jet whilst telling the rest of us we need to travel less. (to give just one example).

Re: Good for the planet?

Yeah, it's a bit long. And El Gato refuses to use capital letters, which grates some people I think. I can summarise.

Climate Science has been captured, and they refuse to even hear any dissenting arguments. Even when Nobel laureates try to put forward arguments, they are denied a platform.

Much of the media has also been captured, and simply buys this story wholesale. The IPCC is not going to play down the "emergency" and the voices that shout the loudest that there's a global catastrophe get more funding. Those who suggest that yes, it's happening but it's almost certainly not going to be as bad as the models suggest, so we could probably mitigate are shut down.

There are some scientists who are bravely willing to stand up and say "There is no climate emergency" under the World Climate Declaration. It's really not that controversial or radical.

Natural as well as anthropogenic factors cause warming.

Warming is slower than predicted.

Climate Policy relies on inadequate models.

CO2 is plant food, the basis for all life on Earth.

Global Warming has not increased natural disasters.

Climate Policy must respect scientific and economic realities.

There's more. If you can get past the flowery fluff. Considering how important this topic is, I think it's worth spending a little time reading both sides. If you just read The Guardian and The BBC, you'll probably believe that our children won't survive (literally) because of "global heating" or "global boiling" or whatever they are calling it next.

Re: Masks DO work

Imagine a condom that stopped 5% of sperm. I guess you'd only get someone 95% pregnant.

Anyway, this is all besides the point. The point is we were not even allowed to have discussions like this on social media, because anyone going against "The Truth" was shut down.

Re: Don't like the way you are framing this

"So, you're basically saying that we actually knew what we didn't know"

This just popped into my email box. Very timely. WE DID KNOW. And El Gato malo has even kept the receipts...

https://boriquagato.substack.com/p/mistakes-were-made

Re: Don't like the way you are framing this

"You are going to get downvoted to heck :) As am I."

Ratio looking OK so far, but USA waking up now so that might all change.

Re: Don't like the way you are framing this

It's not hindsight. Some of us were trying to say these things after the first couple of weeks. Once the panic wore off, and we put down the bottle of rum we looked at the stats and could see that really it was not 3-4% of people dying of all ages, it was closer to a tenth of that, and mostly older vulnerable people. People were not literally dropping dead in the streets in China (and putting their hands out just before they hit the ground). This means it's pretty clear those are the ones we should protect (if they want it). Personally if I was 86 and with serious health problems, I think I would choose to take my chances. Others might choose to lock themselves away for a couple of years. (until vaccine?). It should have been up to them, if they are competent to take that decision.

We were trying to say these things, but we were censored, suppressed, pilloried, shouted down and banned. I've had to leave Next Door, and LinkedIN because I was saying perfectly sensible things but got told to shut up.

Lockdowns were never on the pre-prepared plans. We should have stuck to the plan, but it seems that China did it. Italy did it, and then panic set in and almost everyone just caved in and did it too. It was probably the worst single policy error in modern times, and has caused massive amounts of damage. Seriously I could have done a much better job, because I'm the kind of person who tries to dispassionately look at the facts and do the best thing in a situation. However, I'd never make it as a politician because 1) It doesn't pay very well. 2) You have to go into London and 3) I tend to speak my mind, so wouldn't last very long. Apart from that, I'd probably have a crack at it, and make a better job than the clowns we have in charge.

If people like Alex Berenson and the authors of the Great Barrington Declaration, and a few hundred others has been allowed to say things openly then perhaps we'd have different outcomes now. I don't think we could have actually saved that many lives from the virus, we're just not that good at science or medicine yet. It's inevitable, and there's little you can do about it. We could have at least avoided the collateral damage to the economy, backlogs in care, children's mental health and education.

With masking you seem to be arguing that it's better to "do something", even if all the previous evidence suggests that it doesn't help. That's not science, it's politics. Better to be seen to look like you're doing something.

"Anti-Vaxers" - Can you define that one? I guess pretty much anyone in the UK who is under 75, must be "anti-vaxers" as we're not taking Covid boosters (they aren't being offered) - or the majority of people who decided to stop taking them, even when they were being offered. Same applies in the USA for anyone who is under 6 months old!? Similar thing for the 'flu jab, which is being offered to pretty much anyone of any age. So, I guess you are an anti-vaxxer depending on which country you live in?

"Climate Change Deniers" - again, please define. Plenty of people seem to think we can put in mitigations, massively increase use of nuclear in the medium term and we'll be pretty much just fine. This "misinformation" comes from those who say it's an extinction level event, and we are the "last generation". Although that never seems to get fact checked.

"Conspiracy Theorists" - there are plenty of conspiracies, from Watergate, MK Ultra, USA meddling in South American countries, etc. etc.

"Brexiteer's" - Seriously? WTF?

Re: Was listening to a Radio interview about "people buying into cryptoscams"

"Does he have a degree in Economics?"

How many people with a degree in Economics predicted the 2008 housing crisis? The surveyor who came round to value my house did predict it*, and he didn't have a degree in Economics (as far as I'm aware). Economics is mostly gazing a tea leaves, and occasionally they make predictions which turn out to be right.

* Unfortunately I had no clue as to what he was talking about until a couple of years later. And I'd even helped write Perl software for a Credit Default Swap company back in... checks CV... 2000, so I was perhaps inadvertently part of the problem. To be fair I was just following a spec, and didn't remotely understand the mechanism behind it all.

Surely far more valuable than any qualification is real world experience. And the best way to gain that is through actually doing the job, as an apprentice or junior and working your way up. A degree is a good starting point for some, but it often teaches you a great deal of stuff which you'll never again use throughout your career. Likewise certifications like MCSE really only teach you how to pass certifications, and gain a passing familiarity with the way MS like to do things.

I'd argue this is pretty much the case for ALL qualifications, they teach you how to pass the qualification and you MIGHT pick up some relevant knowledge at the same time. Even more so, since they brought in rankings for schools and universities, which incentivises them to just focus on exam results, at the expense of spending time on learning stuff the the educator has decided is useful for that particular group at that particular time.

I remember learning about simultaneous quadratic equations about 30 years ago, and kind-of understood them at the time. I definitely don't understand them now because as a developer and sysadmin/DevOps I've literally NEVER had to use them, and so I've forgotten. I could probably re-learn them, but what would be the point? Similar thing with designing / developing different sorting algorithms. Just a couple of examples for me personally. YMMY.

Re: Hunter?

Yes, totally agree. I'm no fan of the Trumps either. Seems like everyone is at it. However, the article referred to Hunter and conspiracy theories and was nothing to do with Trump, so a little off topic. Even more off topic than my observation.

Re: Hunter?

It's possible that when all this stuff was going on back in 2016 and before he had most of his marbles, but since then he's lost most of them. He doesn't seem exactly with it a lot of the time. Perhaps it's the stress.

This has really got nothing to do with stealing elections. It's just about what the hell Hunter was doing taking millions from Burisma? Oh, and why did the FBI want to desperately cover it up. Aren't they supposed to be non-partisan?

You seem to have taken every "conspiracy theory" you've ever heard relating to the Bidens and lumped them all together into one huge rant.

Re: Hunter?

"Watergate didn't need a conspiracy theory: it was just a plain and stupid conspiracy."

Actually that's just not true. Watergate was reported by the Washington Post for months and months, and most people just ignored it or thought it was what some would nowadays call a "nothingburger". Perhaps in hindsight we now realise it was a plain and stupid conspiracy, but that was very much not the case in the times leading up to it. At least that's what I've read, as I was a toddler at the time so I don't remember it.

The whole "Let's wait and see" thing is not superiority. If I believe some of the credible things I read on Substack blogs, it seems pretty clear that Biden will be impeached in the next year. Although looking at mainstream media they pretty much all seem to be studiously ignoring the whole thing. Apart from, unfortunately the Daily Mail. Sometimes they are not afraid to go places where other papers won't touch. A lot of the time they are full of shit. How to tell? Wait and see.

My biggest question would be what exactly was Hunter getting paid for by a Ukrainian oil company? Seems like a hellova lot of money to spend on someone, with no oil expertise? Can anyone explain that? And presumably we'd never know about any of this if he hadn't stupidly taken that laptop to a repair shop, whilst presumably... how can I say this... not thinking straight.

Lumping together politicians lying and taking bribes with conspiracy theories like flat earth, moon landing and 9/11 is just a ridiculous argument. We've seen lots of examples of politician being caught lying. You do know birds aren't actually real though? They are just flying reptiles, right?

Of course I could be completely wrong. I've got no skin in this game, I don't live in that country. It just smells really really fishy to me, and it has done ever since the FBI told social media companies to hide the story in the New York Post, because it's "Russian misinformation". If it smells like a conspiracy, looks like a conspiracy and quacks like a conspiracy...

Re: Care?

Only a very small number of geologists believe we are in a new era. Just saying something doesn't make it true.