That sounds like something where due process is supposed to come into play. The best of a series of bad alternatives are worked out in a steady manner by a court system, rather than a hopped up racist at the border bragging about the president being in their corner.
By changing the scope, you changed the effect. Unless you did every statistical validation here... Yeah. That reads exactly like data manipulation. t-distribution approaches standard normal distribution, when the degree of freedom increases. That's not something that anyone should ignore and give credit to. It's the same bullshit that Donald has repeatedly tried to do, to prove himself doing the right thing, even as everything falls apart.
Caring about the truth, requires caring about the methodology, and not just the conclusions.
That’s not what the judge argued. He accused me of falsifying the document by doctoring it before printing.
Which shows:
- How much bad faith you have, assuming I argumented to a judge on a false hypothesis,
- Condescension to assume that I’m not a scientist who masters p-values,
- And ultimately, you confirm the hypothesis that you lead your research in bad faith, knowing full well the true level of violence from women and hiding it, which leads to more child deaths. You are accessory to criminality.
Your attitude confirm as well that it’s good this entire field of researched be defunded, it is a net win for science.
The British government has repeatedly tried and failed to shutdown the BBC. They have repeatedly withdrawn funding. MI5 have had agents deployed inside the BBC to try and subvert it.
As of 2017, it runs by royal assent, and there is just about bukpus that the Parliament can do about it. Because at the same time, funding was moved to a trust, to prevent political interference - a trust that both main parties attempted to shutdown, and control, at different times, but were told that they could only operate within the rights granted by the royal charter.
> The BBC shall be independent in all matters concerning the content of its output, the times and manner in which this is supplied, and in the management of its affairs.
Its not a perfect system. But it is very far removed from the daily pressures of propaganda and an angry government. The BBC is not really "state backed". They are independent.
> The various foreign services of the BBC have always been tied, in some manner, to the national interest. In the 2017 Agreement, that means the Foreign Secretary. Article 33.6 (right) is subject to the Mission and the Public Purposes of the BBC as defined in the Charter, but it supersedes Article 3 (independence).
> Taking account of the strategy and the budget it has set, the BBC will agree with the Foreign Secretary-
> (a) objectives, priorities and targets for the World Service;
> (b) the languages in which the World Service is to be provided
> (9) In addition to the specific provisions of paragraphs (4) to (8), the relationship between
the Foreign Secretary and the BBC for the provision of the World Service is based on
the following principles-
> (a) the BBC has full editorial and managerial independence and integrity in the
provision of the World Service, within the structure of the Charter and this
Framework Agreement;
> (b) in particular, the BBC will decide the most effective and efficient way of
delivering the World Service; and
> (c) subject to compliance with the Charter and this Framework Agreement the
BBC may generate other sources of income for the World Service.
And as a result of "we" being divided, we have the resurgence of many vaccine preventable diseases, because that achievement was flat out rejected by part of humanity.
The rejection itself was a collective action. It wasn't passive, anti-vaxxers did work spreading propaganda, protesting and undermining vaccination efforts. They made it a part of their identity and culture.
If it was a rejection of anything, it was of any assumption of good faith on the part of either government or scientific institutions. Why that happened, as quickly and thoroughly and as polarized along clear partisan lines as it was, is a mystery.
> If it was a rejection of anything, it was of any assumption of good faith on the part of either government or scientific institutions. Why that happened, as quickly and thoroughly and as polarized along clear partisan lines as it was, is a mystery.
It isn't a mystery, it was the bullshit and lies that happened the first month of covid in USA, many people then stopped listening even when the bullshit and lies stopped. I remember the cases in New York exploding and the local democrat told people to continue as normal since its nothing to worry about, and that masks doesn't prevent spread so don't go buy masks, that was how it all started.
They say they had to tell those lies to save resources for those who needs it, but that made people stop trusting them and that counts for so much more. I hope they learned their lesson, but likely they didn't as they never said "Sorry we lied to you, we shouldn't have done that".
Except if you understand they were being misleading, and you understand why, you also understand Covid was a real problem and that there were serious infrastructure and logistics problems that had to be dealt with. You get angry with the government for fumbling the effort, but you still get vaccinated. That doesn't justify believing Fauci and Biden cooked up Covid in a lab or that the vaccines were spiked with microchips or that masks give you brain cancer or half the stuff antivaxxers actually wound up claiming.
People literally formed resistance organizations and were warning of a global fascist takeover, we were entering an eternal police state in which the unvaccinated would become a slave underclass and if you didn't have your vaccine card you would get shot dead in the street.
All of it went far beyond simple mistrust in the government's PR.
You forgot the flip side of the predictions: that the vaccinated would end up bleeding out in the streets. I believe there were a large number of such predictions, which should have already happened.
I think this only strengthens your observation that anti-vaxxing went far beyond simple mistrust.
The current Debian/Hurd port of nginx is outdated, but runs fine.
There's been a few problems with nodejs, as libfuse compatibility isn't the latest yet. Some libraries work fine. Some explode. So you'll have to compile it yourself.
Python and Go, however, should run out of the box just fine.
> Furthermore, on Monday, April 7, 2025, while my client and my team were preparing this disclosure, someone physically taped a threatening note to Mr. Berulis’ home door with photographs – taken via a drone – of him walking in his neighborhood. The threatening note made clear reference to this very disclosure he was preparing for you
It would be astonishingly stupid to threaten a whistleblower in such an amateurish manner when you’re backed by the party in power and have the full and official apparatus of the state at your disposal.
not sure if this is a serious question…? what would it accomplish if you were the whistleblower? if it was me, my family would be on the first flight out of the country
It would convince me that whoever I was whistleblowing on was so remarkably stupid as to engage in a felonious criminal conspiracy while leaving behind physical evidence thereof.
I hope that the threatening note and photos have been turned over to the police, where they can be analyzed for fingerprints, printer microdots, et al, and the police can canvas the neighborhood for security camera footage.
As a tactical move, this kind of threat makes zero sense for anyone in the government to carry out if they are even a semi-rational actor.
That assumes that legal repercussions are expected. The current administration behaves as if laws are only to be followed in case of failure, and only temporarily.
They refer to "lawfare", where you do whatever you feel necessary, and only engage in legal systems where absolutely required, and only to make whatever inciting behaviour legal in retrospect.
our HIGHEST-level government people are texting each other (along with whoever else happens to be in their contacts) war plans so you know, stupid is as stupid does :)
- Who decided to threaten the whistleblower and why?
- Who approved such an idiotic idea?
- Who determined his home address?
- Who flew the drone, timed to capture photos of the whistleblower while on his way to/from his home?
- Who took the drone photography, printed out the images, and wrote a threatening note?
- Who then took all that and physically posted it on his door?
That’s a very involved process, with substantial risk, with no realistic upside. None of the incentives are aligned with the behavior. It simply doesn’t make sense.
Applying Occam’s razor, it seems a lot more likely to be fabricated — that’s a scenario in which incentives actually align with the behavior.
In practice, that shouldn’t make a difference to the investigation; given the physical evidence, they should investigate in great detail the origin of the threat — regardless of whether it’s a hoax or real.
I'm not sure what you're referring to; that article says he leaked internal information to a competitor.
That's not ethically excusable, but it's worlds apart from the kind of very real-world felonies involved in this kind of intimidation.
This kind of intimidation would be an incredible and extremely stupid escalation that carries the potential for decades in federal prison, and for what? DOGE has the ruling party and the full force of the executive branch backing their actions. They have no need whatsoever to engage in behavior so ridiculous and counterproductive.
To be clear, this would have required stalking the whistleblower at and around his home, in person. It would have required creating significant physical evidence that could trivially lead back to the perpetrator. There will be cell phone location records, security camera footage, printer microdots, camera lens/sensor fingerprints.
Going to tell the Preface story tomorrow at work, I guess if your reading this you now know my HN handle ;) Not sure I will do the 'game' but that into was worth clicking the link.
> I guess if your reading this you now know my HN handle
No worries. A great philosopher once wrote:
"There is a theory which states that if ever anyone discovers exactly what your HN handle is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by an HN handle even more bizarre and inexplicable."
reply