> All of the commentary on the violation of the sterile cockpit rule and argument before departure are irrelevant to the actual cause
Which is just as false a statement as it is to say "The violation of the sterile cockpit rule and argument before departure were a significant cause". The fact is, we don't know if it was, but it's not wrong to say that it might be.
Real life is rarely about evidence or not evidence, which is a categorical decision (in contrast to evidence in court, which can be circumstantial).
Some more context in addition to the sibling comment: The classical example is this. You want to test the effectiveness of two drugs A and B in some sort of clinical trial. You gather a lot of data and learn that drug A has an average effectiveness of 4.0, while drug B has 4.9 (more is better). You apply a statistical test and it tells you B is not significantly different from A.
Can you conclude that B is not better than A? You can't. The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. There could be any number of reasons why we don't have significant evidence, e.g. because the experiment was done with a sample too small. B might be better than A, but there is no evidence it is.
The NTSB gathers a lot of data regarding the crash. The board looks at all the factors and deliberates whether they contributed to the crash. It determines that there is no significant evidence that the mental state of the pilot was relevant.
Can you conclude that the mental state was irrelevant? You can't. It's likely the pilot experienced stress but it is impossible to determine whether this stress was significant. It might well be, but there is no evidence it was.
Parent seems to think it was not a factor. But by relying on a flawed argument we will not find out why he actually thinks that way, ultimately leading to an unproductive discussion.
My interpretation is that it is some sort of cognitive bias, which is very common: Because A is better than B, we start to think of B as not good, while in reality B is still good and A is just better. In particular A may only be marginally better, or only be better on paper, according to an irrelevant metric.
I see this come up a lot in hardware discussions (Megapixels come to mind) and manufacturers love to jump on this effect.
This may legally be the case, but it is worth noting that there are various tools out there to try and find posts written by the same person under different names. They use word frequencies, I think.
So, this seems like a case of the law not 100% matching reality. Sometimes the EU adjusts their laws to keep up with reality, I think? (The idea of trying to make sensible laws is pretty foreign to me, but then I’m an American.
No, check GDPR Article 4 (1): personal data means any information relating to an identified or identifiable person.
The content of a post is not personal data (in general) but the things like user name etc are. The content is not relating to an identifiable person (in general) while the user name is.
Depends on the content - not many people out there are directly doxxing themselves but indirectly? Maybe.
From my post history on Reddit, you'd know where I live, my age, gender, job, relationship status and a good amount about places I've been and my interests. There are already websites that collate that info from a profile to give a summary of the user. Under GDPR, that quite possibly adds up to personal data relating to an identifiable person.
And when this is combined with Facebook/Google/Apple/Microsoft shadow profiles, it's an almost certain guarantee that information is linked with your name, DOB, credit info, and tax ID number.
Not disagreeing with you or parent in general, that a post (or as you point out a history of posts) can be personal data.
What I'm saying is, in general it isn't. If you sign up to platform XYZ and make a post, in general, the content of the post is not personal data. It certainly can be. But by default it isn't. That's a misconception I want to dispel.
Yep I agree, if you posted on a specific subreddit this is already personal information about yourself. There is no way they are not violating GDPR if they deny a request to delete (but I guess they can block direct deletion in bad faith and tell you to submit a direct request).
I'm not saying the content of a post can not be personal data. I'm saying it is not by default.
The words "Hello world" posted on any subreddit is not personal data. In this case the company could simply delete the information relating to you such as user name, IP etc.
The content you post is not, in general, personal data. It certainly can be.
That's kind of funny, because "Hello World" gives a strong indication of your profession and interests. Not enough on its own to be PII, but a useful data point.
Something similar happens with HIPAA that people don’t understand.
Personal Health Information is only applicable in a specific setting (a covered entity). You telling your boss/friend/form about your health information does not make it PHI. You willingly disclosed that information.m, it loses its protected status.
> The earliest strains of Covid were by far the most severe ones. It's not that surprising to me that the very first patients contracted a strain more likely to put them in the hospital.
No, the only SARS-Cov-2 strain with (likely) decreased mortality is Omicron, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variants_of_SARS-CoV-2
The fact that Covid (as an illness) has become milder is due to the hosts adapting, not the virus being milder.
Not only the hosts, but also the hospitals. Treatments became available, and we learned what worked well and what didn't. The care a person who is infected today gets is very different from what people in the first months of the pandemic got and that's improved outcomes.
> "In particular Vanilla strains were milder than beta/delta."
Not my experience! OG Covid (March 2020) was just as severe as alpha/beta (December 2020). My most recent infection (August 2022) was much milder, but that could also be explained by being vaccinated.
I don't disagree with your linked comment. But my personal experience, not to mention the high level of hospitalisation and mortality at the time which resulted in the first UK lockdown, disagrees with your "Vanilla strains were milder than beta/delta." statement, if "Vanilla" was the variant circulating in the UK in March 2020.
My understanding is that newer strains aren't much different in terms of severity, but the hospitalization and mortality rates will change by some percentage because our treatment protocols improved. When covid first hit, people had no idea what to do with the infected. Doctors around the world were sharing information and research was underway but they all had to learn as they went along. Eventually things were bound to improve, even if the virus hadn't evolved at all.
Given the first few comments were disingenuous questions about what the definition of "hate" is, there was no doubt that this one would be flagged to oblivion. My kid knew the meaning of the word "hate" at 4 years old. HN users don't?
As someone who plays exclusively on Lichess I find the chess.com bashing, particularly here on HN, a bit short-sighted, in the sense that it's focussed on who provides the better (free) online service to play chess.
If your goal, however, is to popularise the game of chess, i.e. to get more people to play chess, a free online service is only a necessary condition. Chess.com seems to be able to sponsor and organise tournaments, pay content creators/chess players, offer live streams with professional commentators, etc. But also take legal responsibility and stand up to lawsuits.
Interested to hear your thoughts on this. I don't see Lichess being able to provide this type of value, and I'm not sure if they want to or should.
I think both chess.com and lichess are positive influences on the chess scene. We need a corporate presence to be able to organize tournaments, find sponsors, and support streamers.
That said, I prefer lichess and think most people should be using it. But I understand it’s not about the platform’s technical features; for most people, it’s about the network effect with their friends.
I’m surprised that Kölsch is top-fermenting as I (a Dutch beer noob) would describe Kölsch as “like a regular lager, but then really nice and in a long drink glass”.
A lot of home brewers who don’t want to mess about with temperature controlling bottom fermentation go for a top fermenting Kölsch yeast to achieve the same effect.
Exactly. It's a significant cognitive bias / logical fallacy that's very easy to fall for leading to wrong conclusions.
The not-inclusion of factor A for lack of evidence is not evidence of A not being a factor.