There were earlier RNA vaccines, see above peer-reviewed link in this thread I posted. Not widespread, and in early stages. Said there is uncertainty with their safety in 2018. Media has called this the 1st RNA vaccine erroneously sometimes, or sometimes say "first RNA vaccine that is used for a pandemic" or something.
Disagree if you're saying "successful" means safe. In another thread here I linked a 2018 review of RNA vaccines, mostly focused on influenza. They said more safety trials were needed to be sure if they are safe. Pretty sure we've not answered anything further since then. The safety warning they had there was the recognition of the foreign RNA causing a dangerous cytokine response. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6027361/
There is still a lack of understanding of other possibilities that are more subtle. It is reasonable to speculate that, as adverse immune responses are strong disease risks and defects in ordinary health, there is a risk there. But as it has not been studied, no one can say there is a risk or not, in this or other areas. I'd also note, inflammatory disorders are already a weak point in many Western populations, perhaps increasing risk.
Finally, what you're arguing here is about RNA, but the OP linked to someone from the UK, getting a DNA virus. That is delivered by adenoviral packaging, and is well-known to risk genome integration. The link mentions this as well. That doesn't rewrite your DNA, but gives small risk you permanently produce some of the factors involved. But a higher risk it just goes somewhere in the genome and messes up something important at random, just like a mutagen (except the size of the constructs makes their impact more likely to be deleterious, so greater risk per unit than mots chemical mutagens). Deaths from such events have been recorded.
Of course, Hopkins' paranoid idea may not apply, as she's imagining something of a sinister plot with the vaccines, rather than the vaccine concepts that are in the open. Which is a random thing for her to bring up, without some evidence.
This is coming from someone in the UK, which has a quite (IMO) more risky form of vaccine. The DNA-based Astrazeneca one uses tech that has chance for rare, permanent, genome integration in some cells, at random. This risks death, and was the reason for halting the use of similar technologies in gene therapy -- a technology that could cure single-gene disorders, a very substantial medicine. (Good to note the comparison. We do not allow gene therapy in that method because of this risk, but the tech was unbelievably high in value -- successful in doing what all the best drugs can never hope to do.)
Still, it is a stretch. Paranoia IS justified, but of all the things that could go wrong with the vaccine, putting up a specific accusation without evidence will make something easily mocked and disproven. Firstly, it's not a "government injectable", the substance comes from private companies. So for such a thing to happen, it implies the government had someone working inside the company, or swaps out the vaccines from private pharma with their own. It'd also apply over many pharma companies, if extending outside the UK.
Secondly, it seems quite unnecessarily complicated. Why make us unable to defend by taking a vaccine? Am I terribly misunderstanding, or does that have a random jump in logic? You don't need to take a vaccine to make you "unable to defend", people can do that without such complex and risky preparation.
I think pushing this will probably look bad and be ammunition against simpler, legitimate, anti-vaccine arguments. Starting with it being untested and being an unknown risk, and the argument of freedom to choose what to do with your body, especially in such contexts.
Why...? I don't know that at all. I really doubt it in fact.
I really don't want to have any frendly fire, so I hope it's not taken this way, but I really don't see how. I wish you are right, though. As it is, I've seen quite a lot of discussion backing Gab's technical inexpertise level and ineptitude pretty hard. Things in this thread suggest it's true.
Just don't see why we should venerate him to such a degree like this. To do what you said you'd probably need to have amazing talent in hacking, and/or a lot of wealth. Not sure he has either at this moment, not counting some based hacker coming to his aid. He did a good thing by being publicly anti-Leftie and giving a platform to people, but good deeds have no bearing on cybersecurity. Nor does roasting lefties make someone capable in that field (in fact roasting lefties is the easiest thing to do).
Is it difficult to close those vulnerabilities or something? The link implied they were aware, and they apparently had someone blogging about how to exfiltrate them. Suggests great carelessness, unless I'm missing something. Hard to believe given how, on top of the blog describing how to hack them, they know how many enemies they'd have. Sheesh.
Good info and reasoning. Given the tendency for these topics to get derailed I've not seen some of these points before. I tend to think you're right, in general, but I do find it important to note exceptions on this topic.
This conversation reminds me of hearing that Norway and some other countries had declining IQ, which is obviously a motivational reason to pay attention to this field - to address my own question from before.
Just a comment on the genetic clustering pic linked, I am unsure the clusters shown are of a sufficient resolution to conclude anything. To clarify my earlier point, I wasn't doubting the conclusions of stronger similarity in racial groups for genetic markers, or something. I think within those groups there are subgroups that can vary within each other, probably a lot. Prior maps I've seen show big differences among European groups, yet here Europeans are almost almost identical. And nearly visually the same as Middle Eastern groups, such as with Palestinians. I did a quick search and the IQ there is 85 (couldn't get the peer reviewed(?) study by Lynn that came up on the search, so I'm assuming Quora and other sources are right atm). Regardless, the link is the type of chart I'd expect from any broad genetics clustering attempt. That is, something that follows continental migrations, commonly known history, and racial groups. But it cannot exclude that there were different subclusters in these subclusters which has substantial variation. Something supporting this here.
To make an extreme example, let's say one of the subgroups from your link had a population isolated in an island that was founded with a high IQ lineage, and happened to continue in that direction (or we could say a dumb group -- may be easier to imagine). Such groups could not be visible in the type of link you showed, they'd be identical to whatever the nearest population is, unless you had a higher resolution examination. So I believe we can't exclude that intragroup variation interferes with racial generalizations, still.
I kind of saw 5s of him in other vids a few times and for some unknown reason he sometimes gets into suggestions or the random side videos on youtube. He looked like a dumb guy shilling a gimmick hard. Mystified he has any following. I shouldn't say it without watching, but so sure that I will cringe if I watch his video, I've never ventured to give him a chance. Not going to click this video either. Just something I can't find motivation to want to see, even before TDS.
Would be funny. I kind of think the fake news would like it though. Probably gotta choose a good moment. MSM would be able to clear their content and keep their low creativity moaning covering Trump all day while ignoring Biden all the time. Prolly gonna have, guy1: "ANOTHER WHITE SUPREMACIST RALLY, HOW CAN WE STOP THIS AND PROTECT OUR DEMOCRACY?!!"; guy2: "Gulags!"
Thanks for the Dissenter info. I cleared cache just to be safe also switched to Brave. And actually it works better on the few number of sites I've used so far. A little faster and some video sights didn't have a working preview on Dissenter...
About Dissenter safety, I remember hearing a critique maybe 8 months ago. Something about Dissenter storing your IP info and associating it with you, as part of their option to comment on any webpage. I ignored this safety issue, and don't know if true, just putting it out and hoping someone more informed can comment. That comment feature seemed like a good idea. You'd never need to register at many of the nonsense sites, and they couldn't censor you. Alas, it never worked for me once and I forgot about it until now.
I don't recall that happening with Twitter, which also had notable accounts accessed. I'm curious, what would be the reason to release? The thing that comes to mind is either they blackmail Gab about that, or they sell it to someone who has an interest in taking Gab down. Otherwise no reason for it comes to mind unless there is a hacker who is acting out of personal animosity towards Gab (or paid by someone who is?), rather than trying to scam people for Bitcoin.
I think that includes more well-known MAGA people as well. There's not something special about what they offer, but there is a role for them as well. E.g., if you want to talk about some hot topic, do some good research and good presentation, there's not going to be a lot of response. If you share the same thing in a topic started by users who are like communication hub nodes, it gets seen and discussed much more. There's some trade offs, in that people will have less time and attention for unknown posts starting something new, of course.
TBH I think patriots.win was the best situation. Lots of active conversations without any reliance on certain people as hubs. Discussions here have 10x the interactions of Gab and 1000x that of Parler, I'd estimate. And we can do long form and lose the shitty communication losses from word limits. Though both Parler and Gab had longer limits than twitter, in my experience it didn't seem like those got used often, compared to here.
There's no excuse for insufficient election processes, it's embarrassing that even before 2020 we've had such a lax state of affairs. We should never be in a position where there is a lack of clarity about following the rules, and Constitution, in a freaking Presidential election.
I'm assuming most people do not know how to get it to them securely ATM. Torba did post a PO box for this on Gab a lot. Guessing for most online donations they will face substantial expenses in order to repair everything and get things secure and accessible. Just thinking that if they lack the capital for this, it could be very detrimental. As a sidenote on sending something by post, I recall Scott Adams saying whenever the post office knew he was the PO Box owner they would steal his stuff because they thought it'd be valuable, and the same occurred for artists he knew.
Is this going to be deadly to Gab? They relied on donations to try and increase their servers recently. They won't be able to get those after a hack. They won't be able to use other services to get donations, and theirs is insecure. They probably won't be able to get a loan.
I've had accounts on both. Parler had much more well known people you could follow, but I never got involved in almost any conversation. I can recall something semi-serious just a single time. With gab it's kind of more active for casual conversation, but in the past it had been fairly isolated. I actually prefer the format of Gab to twitter (I only ever did like 5 tweets and got kicked off after sharing a COVID graph I made, which was reproducible from sourced public data), and Parler. Parler's interface just didn't seem desirable.
That doesn't make obvious sense. Demonize the people you have to do business most often? And in this case they make one of the cheapest consumer items, not seeing what this particular company gets from demonizing anyone.
My 3rd conspiracy in this thread: if you act super woke at your company, whenever a competitor comes around you can say they're racists and get them bad PR or shut down legally. edit: Corporations lose money by going woke, but orient themselves towards a monopoly. edit2: didn't the Red Bull CEO fire woketologists in his HR for being destructive? Bet they try and use this against him.
Conspiracy #2 for this clownpocalypse nonsense: They want to force white people to do a bad job and in a few years they're going to make a report about how sucky whites work in corporations. Then, I guess, this will be added to their reparations bill and whites will be asked to have less rights as a punishment.
Trump cola. I mean he had Trump steaks, how come no cola. I never drink coke or analogues anyway though. Kind of surprised at the continued popularity. Kind of goes well with fast food burgers to me, but that's like the only condition where I'd actually enjoy it.
That clownworld shit seems like some disgruntled guy at the Smithsonian got fed up and trolled the agenda he was forced to promote, and they didn't notice. Otherwise it's hard to believe. Getting in conspiracy mode as a leftist-tard who wants to promote this agenda, perhaps they think if they attack the objective measures of performance that are used in combination with "diversity" in hiring, then the only valid criteria remaining will be diversity. Great plan except for the sabotaging your entire business. But, if one was a hardcore communist, this may be a separate goal anyways.
That sounds like a great management strategy. With plans like these, how could one not shoot to the top of industry? (in this case ignoring that Coke has been a giant for longer than most of their employees have been alive and probably needs a lot less innovation than average)
We shoot ourselves in the foot so much as a country with self-inflicted obstructions like this. It wasn't my experience with HR overseas and now thankfully my smaller company uses Bambee, which so far has kept my safe from HR aholes.
"Lies to children". Is that a Discworld reference?