shehackedyou

joined 10 months ago
[–] [email protected] 4 points 10 months ago

If only companies could be executed.

Did you know they used to not be immortal by default? Like old companies had to definite like a shutdown date in their articles of incorporation.

Now they have human rights, are immortal, and use the planet like its a computer and they are a poorly written piece of malware.

Hint: Its gonna keep looping till it overheats and crashes. Might need to unplug it and plug it back in again.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 10 months ago

No, we know where we are getting fucked from: behind usually, sometimes ontop so they can choke us, and the rest is always on our knees.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 10 months ago

23andMe

I never met a Geneticist who couldn't immediately recognize this company as a scam. The product wasn't the papers they send you after doing random marker tests once (so, false positives exist, and they never cared). The product is the DNA they collected by convincing people that their test was even remotely useful or insightful.

Its entirely based on correlation; and correlation to what? Geographic area? That makes no sense if you know one of any number of fields and many don't even have to be scientific in nature, or genetics.

I have always hated them, always told people to never use them and get themselves a proper 50x full genome sequencing since it costed the same; and actually provides real, resolute and reliable data. Not just like borderline pseudoscience. Might as well sent in the shape of your skull.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 10 months ago

Well its also their fault for falling for 23andMe because its basically a scam. The data is originally self-selected data sets then correlating a few markers tested once, to match you to their arbitrary groups, isn't exactly how genetics work is done.

Its actually cheap as, maybe cheaper to get 50x full genome sequencing from a company that actually doesn't sell your data; where 23andMe business model was running a few marker tests to appease their audience they kept in the dark of how modern genetics works; then keep the same for full genome sequencing later because that shit only gets more valuable over time.

Its what makes genetics weird. A sample taken 10 years ago, will reveal so much more about you 5 years from now, like massively more.

 

I did my best to summarize the text below in the title, with the limited word count of a title, here is a sample of the text, the article is open access and you should read it.

Don't Read Scientific Articles Often?

That is okay, we are here to teach each other what we know.

If you are unfamiliar with scientific articles, this is what is called a "review article" and more specifically this would be a systematic review article. It is not research itself, but it is a collection of research articles put together to create a larger narrative.

I want people here to learn more about scientific articles if they were never in academia so they can begin using them more as sources for their work and general understanding; instead of relying on very bad science journalists who write articles that don't cite the papers often, and totally misunderstand the scope or point of the article; and are rewarded for misinterpretation that leads to sensationalism.

This is not sensationalism, this is a realistic look at the state of our world, using scientific articles cited to support every point made. And the outcome of the review is an explanation of how the ecosystem is collapsing. Climate instability is a single factor, the feedback loops that maintain our various ecosystems are falling apart quickly.

How and why do I know so much about this topic? I'm in love with very talented ecologist with a masters in ecology, specializing in fungi communication via chemicals (and in computer terms the protocols used to talk to other fungi or even bacteria).

Its unrequited but she is never-the-less a close friend and has introduced me to many ecologists so I have had long conversations with ecologists around the world. And the conversations are always very fucking grim; and when I step back and review the conversations in the way this article reviews research papers, the picture is pretty clear, global warming, or better said climate instability, is a red-herring to make you not see the much much much worse problem we are facing. Focusing on a single molecule COˆ2, or even methane which is far worse, makes the problem seem solvable by capitalism. But capitalism is the software running that is using up the resources, and crashing the planet like a bad piece of software on a computer; an infinite loop, checking far too few variables and we are not allowed to kill -9 it. We just get to watch it slowly crash the "Deep Thought" computer, or a less nerdy way to say it: Earth, a prettier way to say it: Terra (because maybe Hitchhikers Guide viewing the earth as a computer is useful way to view this problem).

An Excerpt From The Scientific Article

UK Chief Scientist John Beddington’s argument that the world faced a ‘perfect storm’ of global events by 2030 has now become a prescient warning. Recent mention of ‘ghastly futures’, ‘widespread ecosystem collapse’ and ‘domino effects on sustainability goals’ tap into a growing consensus within some scientific communities that the Earth is rapidly destabilizing through ‘cascades of collapse’. Some even speculate on ‘end-of-world’ scenarios involving transgressing planetary boundaries (climate, freshwater and ocean acidification), accelerating reinforcing (positive) feedback mechanisms and multiplicative stresses. Prudent risk management clearly requires consideration of the factors that may lead to these bad-to-worst-case scenarios. Put simply, the choices we make about ecosystems and landscape management can accelerate change unexpectedly.

The potential for rapid destabilization of Earth’s ecosystems is, in part, supported by observational evidence for increasing rates of change in key drivers and interactions between systems at the global scale (Supplementary Introduction). For example, despite decreases in global birth rates and increases in renewable energy generation, the general trends of population, greenhouse gas concentrations and economic drivers (such as gross domestic product) are upwards—often with acceleration through the twentieth and twenty-first centuries. Similar non-stationary trends for ecosystem degradation imply that unstable subsystems are common. Furthermore, there is strong evidence globally for the increased frequency and magnitude of erratic events, such as heatwaves and precipitation extremes. Examples include the sequence of European summer droughts since 2015, fire-promoting phases of the tropical Pacific and Indian ocean variability and regional flooding, already implicated in reduced crop yields and increased fatalities and normalized financial costs.

The increased frequency and magnitude of erratic events is expected to continue throughout the twenty-first century. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Sixth Assessment Report concludes that ‘multiple climate hazards will occur simultaneously, and multiple climatic and non-climatic risks will interact, resulting in compounding overall risk and risks cascading across sectors and regions. Overall, global warming will increase the frequency of unprecedented extreme events, raise the probability of compound events15 and ultimately could combine to make multiple system failures more likely. For example, there is a risk that many tipping points can be triggered within the Paris Agreement range of 1.5 to 2 °C warming, including collapse of the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets, die-off of low-latitude coral reefs and widespread abrupt permafrost thaw. These tipping points are contentious and with low likelihood in absolute terms but with potentially large impacts should they occur. In evaluating models of real-world systems, we therefore need to be careful that we capture complex feedback networks and the effects of multiple drivers of change that may act either antagonistically or synergistically. Prompted by these ideas and findings, we use computer simulation models based on four real-world ecosystems to explore how the impacts of multiple growing stresses from human activities, global warming and more interactions between systems could shorten the time left before some of the world’s ecosystems may collapse.

 

There are a lot of leftist communities, there are a lot of science communities, but not many leftist hacker/scientist/engineering communities because those types of communities are often libertarian and believe in tech saviourism bullshit

even if you just want to learn, we can help you, teach you computer science, programming, or just want to hear what communist hackers are up to

like i'm pro bitcoin, pro taking bitcoins from libertarians and selling it back to them. never buy, always sell.

I used the word hacker, but honestly i hate the word hacker:

"If you know me at all

You know my very negative associations with the word #hacker

Despite 2600 efforts; label has caused me a lot of pain + grief + hardship

Why almost laughable when ppl on the internet self label that

Put that in your profile when w/o even accused of a crime- you show up to your house to find intelligence agents sitting around waiting for you" - Ekis (creator of shy community)