As typically used, the term "shadow banned" is a ban without alerting the user that they are banned. That's not the case here. On HN, "banning" means to to have your posts be dead by default. And "banned" is the language 'dang himself used in the message to the user.
It has nothing to do with your particular statement about gasoline taxes or anything else. You could have made exactly the opposite statement and it would have had the same effect. The deeper issue is that HN is not a site for people who want to defeat their political enemies; it's a site for people who want to have curious conversation and learn from each other. I don't think that's too hard to understand.
This is 100% a supply shock. I have colleagues in the import business and containers are impossible to get and when they do you’re looking at 2x pre covid prices.
mRNA is naturally occurring and all the issues are from the adjuvants. It’s like complaining about amino acids, plasma or cells. The vaccine efficiency rate drops by about half in 5 months, it’s not a sturdy permanence. If you are so worried about mRNA, why are you not concerned about its natural occurance in your body since mRNA isn't provent to be safe?
Just like how your platlets, ribosomes, mitocondria and other natural classes of biologicals that naturally occur inside you are not proven to be safe.
And dihydrogen monoxide is often used as engine coolant. Let's not get ridiculous here. The concerns are reasonable: this is the first time this technology has been deployed at scale. Using it is a risk, and not using it is also a risk (COVID is no picnic either), and one must look at the data before making decisions, if one is able to make data-driven decisions at all.
mRNA as a class is safe. That is not a debate. If he’s worried about the current mRNA vaccine as a single entity he can say that or it’s effects. But he stated there is no evidence mRNA is safe. That is ridiculous as being afraid of your own shadows and that concern is not reasonable. He later says mRNA vaccines aren’t proven to be safe, which is what my post states due to externalities. But he doesn’t know what he’s talking about and can’t state any clear concerns because he’s not done any research but thinks his uninformed opinion based on ignorance without any evidence for his skeptical blanket statements is merited.
That's like saying "chemicals are safe". I'm pretty sure the same folks who created the Moderna vaccine could just as well cook up a doomsday military grade pathogen using the same equipment and technology, over approximately the same period of time (a weekend).
I'm not saying vax is not safe. Its safety record, while not perfect, is relatively well understood in adults (but wasn't at the outset). I'm merely saying it's a risk, that should be weighed against the benefits, which (IMO) significantly outweigh the risks for me personally, but not necessarily for someone younger or healthier.
That is why his statement there is no proof mRNA is safe is so ridiculous. That is not far from saying that there is no proof chemicals are safe. I don’t think we have any disagreement, I agree with you. It’s just ridiculous uninformed blanket skepticism I disagree with.
“ But this was only possible due to the history of Harvard within the advent of the internet and the fact that they had such an excess of addresses that Zuck could bind to a public IP address.”
I can speak using MIT as an example and I assume Harvard is the same way for the same reasons.
Big research institutions that were present when IP addresses were being allocated got A LOT of IPs by simply asking for them. Apple has the entire 17.0.0.0/8 range. Ford Motor Company has one, the US Gov has a lot [0]. Up until recently MIT had all of 18. (they sold something like half to AWS for a hefty sum not too long ago).
As a student (or visitor), when you joined the network (wired or Wi-Fi) you weren’t allocated some internal IP behind a router but a PUBLIC 18.something that was in the global address space because they had so many IPs available. This meant you could literally host something on the public internet from your dorm room because every device on the network was publicly routable by a unique public IP address.
> As a student (or visitor), when you joined the network (wired or Wi-Fi) you weren’t allocated some internal IP behind a router but a PUBLIC
As an interesting detail, which seems alien today, is that this was also true at my various employers throughout the 90s. My desktops at work all had public IP addresses and were directly on the Internet, no firewall or anything.
I ran mail and web servers, fully internet accessible, on my work desktops (and lab machines). It was a natural thing to do.
The router on the OP's network was probably just being a router. No fancy NAT junk, and probably no ACLs / fireballing. It was pretty common to have something like a T1 circuit, a CSU/DSU that connected to the T1 and presented a serial connection, and a PPP or SDLC connection to your upstream ISP over that serial connection. The router's Ethernet interface is connected to your switch (or hub) and all the hosts have IP addresses in the subnet your ISP assigned. Fancier shops might have a proxy server or dedicated firewall box between the LAN and the router.
Back in the 90s your ISP would have given you a subnet of public IPs to use. I have a Customer w/ a T1 that they've had since the late 90s with the same /26 of public addresses on it the whole time.
The office ethernet network just contained a router, which would be hooked up to the upstream (via multiple T1 lines, IIRC). So everything on the office network had a public IP and was directly on the internet.
USC would disable any residential port trying to host a real server like that (i.e. not a game server or something). It's a research and education network, not your free ISP. If you have legitimate reasons, get a teacher's note and we'll let you. We watched the connection counts, we'll investigate the weird and probably disable your port and account and send you to Student Conduct. You have to fly under the radar, too many connections to other machines on inside (you're up to something), or too much traffic (you're up to something else). Then again, we were better at network than most other universities.
This is an example of how the internet was originally intended: Every user of the internet has a public address that any other user can send and receive messages from.
The design works just like postal addressing. Your postal address contains the directions to your building from any location on earth. Even if you live in a dormitory building with many other residents, I can still send you a letter directly by adding "door number: 42" to your dorm's postal address.
IP addressing use numbers instead of English terms like "door" and "street". So I can't simply add "door number" to your building's IP address, your building has to be given enough addresses so each resident's computer can have their own. When your computer has a public IP address, I can send Internet packets directly to you.
Harvard was early to the slicing of the IPv4-address pie, so they had enough addresses each of their residents, including Zuck. Anyone with internet could put Zuck's IPv4 address on an Internet packet and it would end up on his computer. Most of these packets would be HTTP requests to facebook.com, to which his computer would reply with a page from the facebook website.
This is the internet working as intended.
But we ran out of IPv4 addresses in 2012, which has forced internet service providers to adopt an address-sharing scheme called network-address-translation (NAT) that makes it impossible to send letters directly to other people's computers. Imagine I wasn't allowed to put any room number or name on my letters. If I sent a letter to your dormitory, the staff there wouldn't know what to do with the letter and would be forced to return-to-sender or discard it. This is what NAT does, and it has turned the glory of the Internet into a centralized monster of control and censorship.
If you want to host a website with a public IPv4, only established cloud providers that obtained enough IPv4 addresses before it was too late can help you (primarily Amazon, Google and Microsoft).
The successor of IPv4, IPv6, brings enough address space for every person, their dog, their dog's fleas, and their dog's flea's microbes. We can go back to hosting websites from our dormitories, sending chat messages directly to our friends (not via Google, Facebook and Microsoft), and start new ISPs that missed out on the IPv4 pie that actually have a chance at competing with the likes of Comcast.
IPv6 reintroduces equity to the internet that facebook benefited from in it's inception.
and how many people remember public ipv4 addresses besides a couple of easy to remember ipv4 addresses like 1.1.1.1 for instance?
rfc1918 address space is easily remembered because people use mostly 192.168.xx.xx. but ipv6 has the same idea and when writing it shorthand isnt significantly larger.
When I worked at a company with about 5-6 servers and a couple fixed remote workstations, all the programmers knew all the IP addresses by heart, if there were names for anything but the www host I didn’t know them.
Obviously doesn’t scale, but I would assume this was normal back when you only interacted with say <10 servers.
That’s a false issue nowadays. Basically any cheap router supports Avahi/Zeroconf/Bonjour … and allows you to reach any other machine of the network directly by its host name instead of its IP. There is not any reason to learn the IP address of your first MySQL server when you can reach it through « mysql-1 » or « mysql-1.local ».
You basically just need a router and an OS from the last two decades and your machines to have a defined host name (which your OS installer takes care of).
I don't think that's true. I've never seen a router that lists hostnames that I can actually ping. Sometimes they do but 50% is always empty. It's a very client dependent solution.
> Basically any cheap router supports Avahi/Zeroconf/Bonjour … and allows you to reach any other machine of the network directly by its host name instead of its IP.
I regularly run into instances where local hostname resolution is unreliable.
To improve reliability, I setup a local DNS server to hand out a domain name with the IP address. Even then, whether a client requires a hostname or FQDN to resolve a local address - that can vary over time.
They are easy enough to remember for a few seconds if you need to configure it somewhere. I always ping 8.8.8.8 to verify my internet connectivity. I don't think people should underestimate how much IP addresses are entered manually on a daily basis.
NAT was a thing much before ip addresses became scarse, is a key enabler in the "internets" ease of use as well as the principal ability to connect nearly double-digit billions of devices with about 200mio live addresses.
the end-to-end principle is mostly undermined by stateful firewalls and a total lack of secure-by-design in software developement, this will not change with ipv6
There was a time when the Internet was not divided between producers and consumers of content, but everyone was an equal netizen with publishing capabilities. Then came asymmetric connections, and datacenters, and the modern hellhole we all know to well.
It's never too late to act: many "community networks" are doing an amazing job to promote selfhosting and hosting cooperatives.
Maybe he does think that his life as a wealthy person is going to improve in any way with hyperinflation. I'd disagree completely.
In fact, I think hyperinflation in the U.S. could likely stir up wars that (as we've imagined since the cold war) could very well break the world. Of course I know nothing of value about this, but chaos followed by violence and escalating into full blown war sounds possible. Or at the very least more possible than now, with a stable structure of power(s) that only shift gradually.
I don't think crypto coins are useful if the world order dissolves and we have trouble keeping up eletric grids, much less a working internet.
Could this also be a result of forced vaccinations on healthcare workers (who were on the front lines for us early in the pandemic) who then move to states without mandates.
The mandate is Federal - any facility that takes Medicaid or Medicare is subject to it. That's pretty much everything except a few small private practices. Traveling nurses will almost always be required to be vaccinated.
Apparently the mandate is in progress and doesn’t yet exist:
A CMS spokesperson told Fierce Healthcare that the agency is currently in the active rule-making process and cannot comment on any specifics of the pending healthcare provider regulations but did note that there will be a 60-day comment period immediately following its publication in the Federal Register.
This is a valid question that does appear politically motivated. But, the downvoting does appear politically motivated.
If we look at the from-state/to-state patterns, we may see evidence, one way or the other, that vaccine mandates cause healthcare workers to change jobs. We may see that the mandates do not cause any significant change. Any significant change (15% or more) in the number of healthcare workers can result in a change in healthcare quality from one state to another. If quality of healthcare changes significantly (positively or negatively) in a state, due to vaccine mandates, I want to know: especially if it is in my state.
You are not gonna get this type of data until years later, if ever. We don't have realtime regional data that is comprehensive, we have local anecdotes and then national data without regional breakdowns.
National data with regional breakdowns always lags by quite a bit, and unless there is institutional demand for such data, it just wont be collected at all.
One possibility is to look at BLS employment data by regions, but it's still really tricky to tease these types of effects out of that.
The number of people who leave because of vaccine mandates are a few percentage points. It's been borne out again and again as mandates are put in effect that the vast majority end up complying and only a few percentage points end up leaving from them. This is a much bigger phenomenon related to how hospital administration cuts nursing to the bone and the lack of organized labor pushing for safer standards of work and better working conditions.
One of the issues is that in the USA (as opposed to Europe and other countries that prioritize science over politics) there are no exemptions for people who have recovered from covid and have natural immunity, which has shown to be more effective than the vaccine.
Worked in hospitals for years. The day my flu vaccine expired I had to go get another or I would be in violation of my contract. Has been like that for decades.
> Amazing how even raising this as a question gets you downvoted.
That's because it's readily debunked. Nurses largely can't evade the vaccine mandates by moving; virtually all healthcare facilities are subject to the Federal vaccine mandate.
> Yes, I’m sure it’s a factor, and needlessly so considering the vaccine seems to have a negligible effect on transmission.
"Both vaccines reduced transmission, although they were more effective against the alpha variant compared to the delta variant. When infected with the delta variant, a given contact was 65 percent less likely to test positive if the person from whom the exposure occurred was fully vaccinated with two doses of the Pfizer vaccine. With AstraZeneca, a given contact was 36 percent less likely to test positive if the person from whom the exposure occurred was fully vaccinated."
There are plenty of articles from healthcare CEOs complaining about forcing the vaccine mandate. The loss of just a few percent of nursing staff can cause crippling staffing issues.
Sure, why blame yourself when you can blame someone else? It’s a gift for cost-cutting hospital admins who’ve been running understaffed facilities for years.
The ERs in my city have been code red half the time for the last decade.
The vaccine does reduce transmissibility. From the CDC: "Infections with the Delta variant in vaccinated persons potentially have reduced transmissibility than infections in unvaccinated persons, although additional studies are needed."[0] and Delta is more transmissible than "regular" COVID for the vaccinated (and I think in general).
But the primary benefit of the vaccine is to reduce the burden on the healthcare system. The vast majority (mid-to-high-90%s) of hospitalizations are among the unvaccinated. It stands to reason that the more people running around without being vaccinated, the more people will get hospitalized. At a certain point, death is just a percentage of hospitalization, especially as you have places without beds that have to just turn people away. So fewer vaccines directly correlates to more deaths.
Speaking personally now, I don't care if people don't want to get vaccinated. I think it's idiotic, the vaccine is FDA approved now, hundreds of millions of people have gotten it and side effects are as rare or rarer than any other vaccine. But if you work with the public, especially in public health, schools, etc., there is a list of required vaccinations multiple pages long. Adding one more to the list isn't an encroachment on anyone's civil liberties, and you're free to move elsewhere, but that's not what's happening here.
I'm not downvoting you, just pointing out that transmission isn't the only reason to be vaccinated in a hospital setting.
Hospital systems are already overwhelmed, so having vaccinated staff reduces the amount of staff that have to miss shifts because they are dealing with covid symptoms.
Vaccines reduce symptoms, death and hospitalizations from covid complications. It's amazing to me that we have hospital staff that would rather listen to the Joe Rogans of the world than to the science they supposedly learned about in college.
Not only will your comment be downvoted, it will be relentlessly questioned for veracity, as if asking a question required verifiable links from approved sources.
I love how you both acknowledge that health care workers quitting over forced vaccination is an issue while immediately dismissing their actual experience of having worked through both pre and post vaccine covid world and first hand seeing the impact of mass vacination.
If enough health care workers are willing to walk away from their jobs rather than take a vaccine, maybe you should take their observations seriously?
> If enough health care workers are willing to walk away from their jobs rather than take a vaccine, maybe you should take their observations seriously?
If you value their opinions in that way, you should get the vaccine.
"The American Medical Association (AMA) today released a new survey (PDF) among practicing physicians that shows more than 96 percent of surveyed U.S. physicians have been fully vaccinated for COVID-19, with no significant difference in vaccination rates across regions. Of the physicians who are not yet vaccinated, an additional 45 percent do plan to get vaccinated."
> Jordan said it was particularly the line-flow system that Southwest uses as part of a point-to-point network that made it harder for Southwest to recover than other airlines with heavy exposure in Florida, such as American, which has a hub in Miami as part of its hub-and-spoke network.
> “We’re not hub and spoke, and we do very little out-and-back,” Jordan said. “So when you stop a line, you’re stopping a line where the aircraft is attempting to flow across the country.”
Southwest is notable for being different; they use a single aircraft type, point-to-point routing over hubs, and started the low-cost airline trend.
The same argument applies to the vaccine hypothesis, incidentally. If it was the mandates, the other airlines who instituted mandates should've been similarly affected.
Bitcoin undermines their existence.