Since they are testers and not auditors, what prevents Donut Labs from changing the actual battery sent for testing, selecting whatever works best for that specific test? In aggregate each test would seemingly validate their claims, only nobody ever validated and audited the fact that the same exact battery was used in all the tests.
As many have said, so many red flags around something so exceptionally revolutionary that you'd need extremely strong and unquestionably real proof.
Nothing, that's why this comes off as largely performative and awfully suspect.
Let me put it this way - these labs are functionally pretty similar to a Qwest diagnostics or Lab Corp. Those places draw your blood and run tests on it. The prescription tells them the tests to do, and the doctor is the one who evaluates the results. The labs are just a dumb tool to do the testing as prescribed.
Donut in this case is writing their own prescription and then posting the results. Just like a lab, they don't interrogate you to see if you are manipulating your blood results. That's the doctor's job. And ultimately at the lab it's just a lowly tech going through the same motions they go through every day.
Nothing prevents that, and the test lab wouldn't bat an eye at that. For all they know or care, you wanted to run different test on different cells. The only thing the lab is verifying is that the defined test was executed as stated, nothing else.
Right. Basically routing (i.e. connecting pads / terminals of various electronic components) is a relatively hard problem and usually gets done by hand.
Ergogen lacks the ability to spit out routed PCBs, but the Samoklava repositories shows how to use a KiCad CLI addon to do just that and generate final files ready for fabrication (though you should always inspect them).
Many reputable ebikes manufacturers certify their bikes for sale in Europe, through the CE mark and related EN certifications, so hopefully the FDNY will accept that as a comparable certification indicating quality.
Treating others as ridiculous won't help with the convincing. Reason doesn't always work when strong emotions are at play.
However, I am no psychologist nor an influencer, I too don't know what can be done to overcome the impasse. I'd be curious to know what strategies work.
I think GP made a good argument, if you state it in somewhat more friendly words.
The world is different now from 2019; history has forced on us the unfortunate choice between the vaccine and the novel Coronavirus. The idea that the vaccine might have unknown, rare, long-term side-effects isn't nonsensical per se; but you have to weigh the probability of that against the certainty of you and / or your loved ones getting the virus if you're not vaccinated.
What we definitely know so far is that such weird "dark horse" side-effects that only appear long after the actual studies are a very rare phenomenon for vaccines in general, there is no biological reason for why they should appear in this case, and none have been observed so far, even though the first people got these vaccines a year or so ago.
Probably the underlying problem is a general fear of vaccines or pharmaceuticals in general. Side-effects in general occupy a way too large space in people's imagination. It might help to consider the dangers inherent to common everyday activities to keep things in perspective.
It is certain. Even if the vaccines always led to sterilizing immunity (they don't) and immunity lasted forever (it doesn't), we're not reaching sufficient fractions of vaccinated people literally anywhere in the world for the virus to go extinct locally - the newest variants are just that contagious.
And even if that was possible in some first world countries, that wouldn't be sufficient, it would simply be re-imported sooner or later. So there's really no way it's going away.
This is now an endemic human virus and, vaccinated or not, you'll be exposed to it many times over the rest of your lifetime. Barring some technological breakthrough in vaccine development and a big shift in people's attitudes towards them, it's with us forever.
You also don't have to take my word for it, this is an uncontroversial view amongst infectious disease epidemiologists.
Vaccines decrease your chance of bad COVID from one small number to another 10x smaller number. "Getting the virus", even if almost certain, isn't something most people have to worry about. Bad COVID is a worry, getting the virus, no.
>Treating others as ridiculous won't help with the convincing.
Nothing will work to convince an unreasonable person. The next best thing to do involves blunting the impact of their dangerous choices, e.g. adding penalties and restrictions for the unvaccinated in society so they can't harm the rest of us.
I think this is the problem with the discourse around vaccines. People are quick to dismiss others as "reckless, unreasonable, impossible to convince".
The people I know are far from unreasonable, but they might be applying the wrong reasoning strategy or fixating on bad / outdated data, or worst case outcome only.
Nobody in the general population has the obligation to convince others, to be clear. I just wish the public discourse and institutions did a better job at educating and catering to those points of view instead of branding people by their against-vaccine stance only.
This is truly a very common sentiment. Independent of the approved status, the common phrase is "how can we know it won't have long term effects that are unknown now?".
Psychological effects of past medical disasters that caused irreversible harm and went under the authority's radar shouldn't be discounted, many people cling to that to justify their fear of the unknown.
So how do we set up a discourse that takes this type of fear into account? What are the tricks or strategies to help people overcome their fears?
The more time you spend thinking about a possible negative outcome, the more likely your intuition will believe that negative outcome to be. This affects everybody, even people who ought to know better, like scientists. It's a shockingly strong effect, too.
If you don't couch your logical discourse inside a procedure that translates its outcome directly into action (like an approval process), attention bias is almost guaranteed to override the outcome, no matter how good your reasoning. Since better reasoning takes more time, this leads to the unfortunate circumstance where better, deeper arguments are less likely to be effective that shorter, weaker arguments.
>the common phrase is "how can we know it won't have long term effects that are unknown now?".
If this was truly the fear, we would see these types of people wearing masks religiously. But we don't, which means it's not a medical fear, it's a political one.
You are painting people in big strokes. The people I know that fear long term effects wear mask religiously and follow safety procedures.
These are also the same people that won't get a flu vaccine, and resist getting the vaccines for all but the most deadly of diseases.
Another comment in this submission mentioned being bad at evaluating risk, perhaps that's what it is. They fixate on the unknowns of a vaccine, but they aren't able to compare it effectively to the risks of the virus.
According to a tweet by Bank Security (https://twitter.com/Bank_Security/status/1343646616490815493) a database dump has been circulating containing PII, Phone Numbers and ICCID of 2.5M sim cards. As a response, Ho-Mobile will replace SIM cards for free if requested.
Caveat: SIM will be replaced only by visiting a participating store in person. This is not always easy / possible, especially with ongoing COVID-19 transit restrictions.
>> Global warming and ocean acidification associated with the immense volcanic CO2 injection to the atmosphere was already fatal and led to the extinction of marine calcifying organisms right at the onset of the extinction. However, the CO2 release also brought further consequences; with increased global temperatures caused by the greenhouse effect, chemical weathering on land also increased.
>> Over thousands of years, increasing amounts of nutrients reached the oceans via rivers and coasts, which then became over-fertilized. The result was a large-scale oxygen depletion and the alteration of entire elemental cycles.
As many have said, so many red flags around something so exceptionally revolutionary that you'd need extremely strong and unquestionably real proof.