The tree does own itself in the sense it is a free living being just like birds singing on its branches who could care less about human affairs until it affects their own space and freedom.
The fact is the human species has invaded the whole planet and acts as an occupying force imposing on every life forms its own laws, a good chunk of which only serve the purpose of supporting and sustaining the belief in property and its transmission. Even human beings are subject to property (slavery).
Reminds me of what clojure spec is trying to do: create data specifications that can be named and reused via a registry. The metadata is just data on the shape of the data so it can serve as doc, validation, data generation, property testing, etc. Spec names are namespaced but no specific guidelines are given it's just organizational.
Separately clojure also allows for namespaced names for map entries, but again provides no specific guidelines on what namespaces should be: in code this could be a library name, but it could also be an entity name as suggested by datomic best practices.
The combination of both features, namespaced var/entry names associated with namespaced specs, seems to make more sense than using name parts conventions, but if you're not clojure all the way then the latter might be the only way.
Thanks for that reference to Fomenko, I wonder how that relates to the questions being asked by JonLevi on youtube [0].
Not sure what to believe, but I have to admit the questions the guy is asking while showing satellite pictures and old photos are really intriguing. Never mind the possible farfetched explanation, at least you should wonder what possible explanation conventional history and science can provide.
It was particularly funny when he got to the Parliament Palace in Bucharest, whose construction my parents remember well, and which you can find so many pictures of (not to mention pictures of how the location looked before everything on it was torn down to start work on this).
Basically, it looks like the author starts with the assumption that humanity can no longer build old-style buildings (as if it's hard to use columns) and builds their world-view from there. It is really quite funny.
Awesome! I thought chemtrails was comedy gold, but this is really funny to see! To think you'd know so little of the world that you could convince yourself 'old' buildings (50 years ago! as in the old Eddie Izzard joke) are basically impossible to build, so they must just be discovered.
It's really incredible what you can believe in with the right mix of bad education, lack of experience in the real world, and childlike thinking about how the world hasn't changed. Reminds me of when I was 5 years old and wondering how come some people are bor. children like me, while others were born as adults, or as old people!
is this some kind of guerilla marketing strategy for a youtube channel? not sure this has anything to do with fomenko except that they were both conspiracy nuts.
It looks like they are both conspiracy nuts who believe that the entire world history up to some point is an elaborate forgery. Fomenko seems to believe that it was done to suppress knowledge about the Russian empire, while the creator of the videos above seems to believe that everything up to modern history is a forgery and that it was done to obscure the truth of Noah's flood.
The reasons why they believe these things are also different - I haven't read Fomenko, but the videos above seem to focus on a belief that oldish-looking buildings can't be relatively new (they know this becaude they can't find examples of large oldish-looking buildings being built literally today in their area) , so they must have all been dug up from a much more advanced prior civilization, after they had been buried by the flood of Noah.
Nope, I have nothing to do with that guy. I'm just intrigued by all the questions being raised in these videos. Perhaps you would have preferred a link to single video instead of all of them. Hard to single one out, but I'll try:
https://youtu.be/TsZFE7CUrYY
As I said, I still doubt some of the explanations brought forward (e.g. the mining activities in the video I just mentioned) but when you see so much visible stuff from satellite imagery in the middle of nowhere in North America it really makes you wonder what was there, what do our history books say?
It's really funny the things you can believe if you're really convinced of something. He really is looking at dirt roads criss-crossed by more dirt, and claiming they are ancient roads criss-crossed by ancient railroads. Or looking at artifacts of how Google maps are built (being stitched together from photographs from different days, different cameras, and a combination of satellite and airplane imagery as you zoom in and out etc) and getting convinced that they represent both doctored images AND signs of artificial construction on a massive scale).
A bogus test would explain a lot of oddities such as a high number of asymptomatic cases and testing positive again after recovery. It would help to know what is being tested exactly: are we sure we isolated that virus, how specific is the sequence being tested?
Reminds me of the recent interview of Pr Raoult who's been using chloroquine to treat covid-19 in France. Here's a google translated extract:
To those who say that we need thirty multicenter studies and a thousand patients included, I answer that if we were to apply the rules of current methodologists, we would have to redo a study on the interest of the parachute. Take 100 people, half with parachutes and the other without and count the dead at the end to see what is most effective.
When you have a treatment that works against zero other treatment available, this treatment should become the benchmark.
And it's my freedom to prescribe as a doctor. We don't have to obey government orders to treat the sick. The recommendations of the High Health Authority are an indication, but it does not oblige you. Since Hippocrates, the doctor has done for the best, in the state of his knowledge and in the state of science.
> In 2006, Raoult and four other co-authors were banned for one year from publishing in the journals of the American Society for Microbiology, after a reviewer for Infection and Immunity discovered that two images in a figure from the revised manuscript of a paper about mouse modelling for typhus were identical to figures from the originally submitted manuscript, even though they were supposed to represent a different experiment.
Again people not on the front line criticise those who are.
If you get infected, would you take it, or would you wait and see the result of the full study?
Now imagine having to take that decision not just for your life, but for your patients, and all the 200 staff that work in your hospital.
Another way to view the situation: you are a policeman stopping an ambulance not respecting the driving code and driving too fast, and then learn there is a dying patient in the back, what do you do?
> Another way to view the situation: you are a policeman stopping an ambulance not respecting the driving code and driving too fast, and then learn there is a dying patient in the back, what do you do?
Tell the ambulance driver to turn on the siren and party lights and have a nice day.
Like, there are already exemptions for ambulances driving "recklessly" as long as they're indicating (via siren and lights) that they're doing so in an emergency situation.
On that note, though, if the ambulance is driving too recklessly it might do more harm than good to the patient. It wouldn't necessarily be the police officer's place to make that determination, but it could certainly be a contributing factor for reprimanding the ambulance driver should the patient end up more injuries coming out of the ambulance than one did getting in.
Overall, a pretty poor analogy IMO, even if I do (to an extent) agree with your point.
Being "on the front lines" does not render your science immune to criticism. That's just not how it works. Doing good science is the only defense against rational criticism.
You're basically asking us to take his word for it because he happens to be treating covid patients. That is not a thing.
Many people don't trust Intel & the SGX technology.
Intel controls the initial attestation keys – so you're dependent on their goodwill. Much of the world will view Intel as being as cheerfully compliant with US government requests, including undisclosed & arguably-illegal requests. (That's just like how some in the US view Huawei as being compliant in undisclosed ways with the Chinese government's requests.)
Sophisticated, high-budget/state-supported attackers may be able to compromise SGX units, via physical analysis/disassembly/reassembly. (This might happen before a unit is placed in service, or just show up to the outside as a temporary service outage.) So any secrecy/security features provided by their qualities could be a false promise.
Some security experts deeply distrust both SGX specifically, and the general idea that such a piece of hardware could provide the touted benefits against sufficiently-sophisticated attackers.
If I am reading that correctly, some countries like Spain see almost annual death spikes to around 8 standard deviations. That doesn’t make sense, what did I miss?
The fact is the human species has invaded the whole planet and acts as an occupying force imposing on every life forms its own laws, a good chunk of which only serve the purpose of supporting and sustaining the belief in property and its transmission. Even human beings are subject to property (slavery).
Did the tree give any consent to these laws?