Emily saw major issues with her own translation and decided to make a new one. Do you think software should stay on one version forever even if the developers know it's full of bugs?
I agree. I say this as a eurosceptic myself. HN and Twitter make it seem like the EU is borderline third world that is moments away from collapse.
Germany is the third largest economy in the world. The EU as a bloc is the second largest economy in the world.
While lagging considerably behind the US and China in services, it still is among the leaders in energy and manufacturing.
It’s in decline, but it’s really not anything that can’t be fixed.
Certainly not anywhere HN/Twitter like to make it out to be.
The EU is facing a two-front information war. A strong EU doesn’t benefit the US, Russia or China. Having said that, a lot of US criticisms that are propagandised against the EU are mostly fair criticisms, the EU makes it easy for its adversaries to propagandise low hanging fruit (such as the bureaucracy on display here)
This is definitely going on in the background. Mercosur and another EU trade deal with India. Canada and China (which was struck down but I imagine it will be rekindled with this). Just wait for some EU + Canada deal soon enough.
>In men younger than 40 years old, the number of excess myocarditis events per million people was higher after a second dose of mRNA-1273 than after a positive SARS-CoV-2 test (97 [95% CI, 91–99] versus 16 [95% CI, 12–18]).
From your own study you linked. The first comment I ever posted on HN was regarding a similar study where there was no control group whatsoever for unvaccinated people.
I can’t get over the sunk cost reaction to this vaccine. No one who was not immunocompromised should have ever taken it. Period.
And this is just regarding your study.
Remember how the AstraZeneca vaccine (it was called the “Oxford vaccine” before that bad PR) was taken off the market instantly after reports of blood clots.
Until when? At what point? Where exactly? The Astra Zeneca (Oxford) vaccine is relevant because it was taken off the market almost immediately after the effects were found. The technology behind it is utterly irrelevant to the point that I am making.
How am I a conspiracy theorist when I literally pointed out what the study said. Is it not a fact that the Oxford vaccine was taken off the market almost immediately after effects were concretely found.
Let's get your theory straight. You posit a conspiracy where some cabal kept mRNA vaccines on the market despite harms while removing the AZ vaccine. This theory requires a conspiracy. Hence, conspiracy theory.
The woman is clearly a human life too, and every western country has a right to self defense. A fetus is an imminent danger to women, their health, and their property. They have a right to remove it from their own body to stop that.
Or am I allowed to unconsentually put myself inside anyone for months, eating the food from their blood like a tapeworm, causing chronic pain, permanently changing their hormones, potentially risking death, just to come ripping my way out of their body and then demanding 18 years of pay and attention?
Am I entitled to an unconsenting healthy person's blood or organs or marrow if I'm going to die without it and we know they're "probably" going to be fine?
Yes but... you used the word "belief". Nothing scientific there.
If the mother was raped and knows for sure she will not bring up her rapist's kid ... or if there is a possibility that letting the baby be born will kill the mother, MY belief is to follow the mother's wishes.
Not all of us I would bet. One can believe the fetus is a human life, and still want to allow the mother ending it. Sure it’s rough, but this is a classic case of conflicting interest. Pretending the fetus isn’t human yet is just one of several ways to side with the mother’s decision. Malformations or danger to the mother’s life are two others. And then there’s the more radical position that as long as the fetus hasn’t left the womb, the mother’s autonomy is still more important than its life.
This last one is less a belief, (one week before birth the baby is clearly viable), than it is a value system. Though I’d be curious to see the statistics on countries that allow abortion up to birth itself. If it turns out practically no one aborts after 4 months or whatever, that particular point would be moot.
> This last one is less a belief, (one week before birth the baby is clearly viable), than it is a value system.
Upthread, a response to me indicated very clearly that, even at 1 day before delivery, it should be the mother's choice.
There's a lot of nuance here, with clearly many people stuck in denial: this is not a binary question. There's a spectrum, all the way from 1 day after conception to 1 day before delivery.
The pro-choicers are pretending that all the pro-lifers want to outlaw the morning after pill. The pro-choicers are also not doing themselves any favours by actually, on this story alone, positioning themselves as supporting 1-day-before-delivery abortions.
Everyone has a line they'll draw. Not everyone's line is in the same place.
You are being downvoted, and I don't know why. The majority of abortions are a result of people getting pregnant and not wanting a baby. And that's alright, there's nothing wrong with that.
I say this as someone that is 100% pro-abortion. If a woman wants to not have a baby, it's her body, and her right to decide. The discussion ends there.
Life is hard in the best of times. It must suck to be brought into a world where your mother doesn't even fucking want you around.
Moreover, it's probably preferable that people that make poor decisions regarding pregnancy opt themselves out of the gene pool.
Even so, you are deliberately dismissing rape victims that got pregnant[1], what is their recourse? Or do you just care about the rights of a fetus while it's in utero and then they're on their own as soon as they pop out?
I linked to a study exploring the numbers in the US states where abortion was banned, not referring to Italy here. My response was to the "rape victim red herring" which i find incredibly distasteful.
If someone is morally opposed to abortion, they don’t need to have one. That’s where it should end, there’s no need to control the bodies of others due to a moral belief that other people don’t hold.
The fetus is inside of an adult human with a life they’re living. The decision is theirs to make, nobody else should have input, but unfortunately that isn’t the case in some places.
Someone having an abortion have zero effect on a person who is against abortion but has never met them. The anti-abortion person should mind their own business.
I don’t believe in god and think religion is generally harmful but I don’t go around campaigning to eliminate religious freedoms. I don’t tell religious people I think their beliefs are ridiculous, I keep it to myself.
Abortion wasn’t even an issue in the US until Atwater->Reagan realized there were a bunch of religious people they could manipulate into voting for the GOP by making abortion a wedge issue.
That is unfortunate, but the opposing view entitles a fetus to use of another persons body. This is something I am not entitled to, even if a blood transfusion, marrow transplant, or organ donation would save my life with certainty.
Mine is still going strong, it can run Gemma 4 26b. It can still play all the games I care about at near max settings at 1440p at 60 FPS (like Elden Ring).#
My PC did coincidentally die today (not GPU related) so I think it's time for an upgrade, what do you recommend?
Ryzen 5000 cpus are extremely cheap right now. I bought a 5900xt (16 cores) to upgrade a server a few weeks ago for ~$250. If you already have DDR4 you could put together a system for pretty cheap if you need it soon.
The downside is that AM4 is basically EOL, so no upgrade path.
I wonder when the Anthropic and OpenAI bailouts will be? Maybe they’ll successfully lobby the US to enable drastic protectionist policies against foreign models.
Anthropic have a lot to answer for. Not even Altman was that bold.
reply