A lot of us were genuinely cheering on the announcement that the Oxford vaccine would be opensourced, it was the reason people were actually following updates on that vaccine specifically. It waa a big point of discussion here on lemmy at that time and when the decision was reversed the focal point of every criticism was that it would very obviously limit vaccine accessibility at a time when we desperately needed the population vaccinated as quickly as possible. People were angry over his justifications because even if we assumed the best-case scenario where he was somehow correct and it wouldn’t restrict vaccine access at all, it still would not be an improvement over not having a patent at all. The absolute best case scenario for that reversal would have been vaccination rates being just as high as if it stayed open-source.

I don’t doubt some morons found those headlines after-the-fact and did their own spin without reading, but the idea that antivaccine sentiments and blind Gates-hatred were the motivators for people being upset with him when that happened is wrong.

It’s very hard to talk about but I had a mental breakdown worse than I had ever imagined was possible. I have almost a full week after that I have no memory of, but after being taken to the hospital I have a lot of memories that are still extremely vivid in my mind of experiences there that did not actually happen in reality. I was living in an alternate universe for about three or four weeks.

So the answer is that initially we had parted on good terms, but right now our contact is entirely formal, I assume to look out for her own mental health.

The decision was made at the end of October last year, so still very fresh and still very painful. Legally still married for a few more months.

I watched her spirit die in slow-motion from my health issues making me unable to meaningfully contribute and turning her into a caretaker while being the breadwinner. It wasn’t one single thing with my health, it was a series of one issue setting off new issues, and after a long enough time of that you stop feeling optimistic that getting through your current problem will be the end, and emotionally the new ones hit harder. I know this sounds bad on her, but she tried so hard for so very long. I knew it was killing her, it was killing me watching what she was going through. It wasn’t her fault for giving up, and anyone who watched what I did would understand that.

I’ve moved back in with my parents as a man in his late thirties. I wish I had had the courage to make that decision myself a year ago rather than forcing her to decide to give up. I kept trying to have faith that if I just kept pushing I could get back to a better place and fix everything. My parents are a nine-hour drive away, with my mom having severe cat allergies, so moving out also meant abandoning my best friends, and obviously my human friends too.

Counseling helps a lot but I feel like twice a week is still nowhere close to enough. And of course, almost every single problem I’m going through has health insurance fighting tooth and nail to not treat and I feel limited in my emotional ability to be constantly fighting on all of that.

I also had a really good relationship with my parents before but I am absurdly sensitive to the weight I’m putting on them right now, which I think is a trauma reaction. They are doing everything they can for me and I just totally withdraw and don’t feel like myself at all around them now. They want the best for me but right now I do not have the emotional strength to make any requests of them, no matter how light.

This mostly turned into venting, but given the thread topic it’s probably expected. I don’t really want suggestions for actions to take because right now I’m still too dead inside to follow through on anything.

I think we can all agree that Trump should respond to this baseless libel by unsealing every inch of dirt he has on Elon.

And an AOC candidacy would really, really excite me if I didn’t know that Democrats rig their primaries.

Yeah at this point I think you could take a person from my own life that I have literal love and respect for and I would still be more inclined to interpret surviving a primary as a character indictment than as reason for optimism.

I still remember like twenty years ago undergrad probability theory a professor posed some question to the class and even though this prof was normally very thorough with being helpful and walking through answers with students, this one guy answered so wildly off-the-mark the prof paused a bit and then just said “no” and moved on.

We were doing final exam review for earlier semester material and the question was about the probability of randomly drawing some hand of cards, something like a hand of five cards with exactly three jacks. Guy answered very confidently “it’s 1 minus the null set”. I remember this because I immediately asked the kid next to me what was said and just heard the same thing repeated.

So many things wrong. A “null set” is a concept from measure theory, which was not used in this second-year-undergrad course. Since using “the” here implies there’s just one, he almost certainly meant the empty set. That’s whatever. But we’re not in a set theory class, 1 is a number, not a set, so we’re not in a context where it makes any sense to subtract sets from numbers. But if we just push all of that aside and say okay fine, represent 1 as a set however you want and subtract the empty set, taking any set A and subtracting the empty set just gives A back, meaning he’s given an extremely roundabout way of saying the probability is 1, a 100% chance of randomly drawing that specific hand of cards.

Situation where it’s would be one thing if we’re early on and he’ll discover he’s in over his head, but right before the final is such a wild time to sound fully confident in an answer that wrong.

Moral of the story: sometimes having that much confidence behind an awful understanding will give bystanders enough secondhand embarrassment that they’ll still think of you from time to time twenty years later.

People without empathy shouldn’t have the right to lead people (politics, work, …).

The inclusion of the phrase “have the right to” is what changes this statement from sensible to nonsense. We’d need a way to declare who has that right, and I cannot imagine any idea of an empathy certification board that is not horrifically dystopian.

I’m not convinced, could you share your evidence?

Probably shouldn’t assume that guy’s personal view is the norm.

For me that sounds exactly as appealing as using pineapple.

You don’t have to like it for it to be a valid topping.

That’s a hill you will die on from old age. I have never once heard someone say pineapple is not a valid topping in a way I thought was meant to be taken literally and not as a hyperbolic way of saying “I don’t like it”.

How is that true in a way different from other industries? I do think there’s no necessity for the race of the VA to correspond with the race of the character. That might be because I don’t have a good grasp on the arguments otherwise though.

The argument I’ve heard in favor of VAs matching their characters is to avoid laundering white perspectives to minority characters, which would make sense if the VA didn’t have their livelihood on the line when asked to read from a script written by a cishet white man. I feel like requiring a minority do that makes no difference other than providing a cover of legitimacy for the words said.

But as a cishet white male myself, maybe I’m mischaracterizing the argument, I’d be curious. I have asked my (racial minority) wife at one point a couple years back and she wasn’t sure.

It’s a given that there are insensitivities in hirings, but I struggle to imagine a way in which that would be unique to voice acting specifically.

The Gates foundation explicitly lobbied against Oxford’s initial plan to open source their covid vaccine. Gates’ worship of intellectual propery law is responsible for the patent on the astrazeneca vaccine. The project was initially started under the hope that the third world being able to manufacture their own vaccines without owing royalties would be important in limiting the spread of covid.

I don’t think this is true. If we’re talking about enthusiastic democratic voters then I’m not gonna argue, but I think the vast majority of democratic voters are reluctant. It’s mostly a body of overworked and exploited people who are coping with their lack of political autonomy by setting aside a bit of time on election days to cast a vote against what they have concluded is the greater evil. It’s reasonable to critique that, but it’s much more demoralization than it is stupidity.

If we go with the email analogy, people rarely ever search for ‘email’, they just go to the specific ones they know.

I get it, but everyone going to gmail is not a good thing and never has been. The paradigm shift is more meaningful than simply growing lemmy as a community. Without that, the only difference from a mainstream social network today would be a handful of big players rather than just one.

I used facebook way too much and the thing that got me to finally delete my account in 2011 was I had made a post about discovering diaspora and linking my account. Hung out with a friend a month or two later and he loaded up my facebook profile and could see every post I had ever made except the one about a federated facebook alternative.

Veering a little off-topic now, but facebook contacts being my irl friends made that feel so dangerous to me. If half my friends have opinion A and the other half opinion B, then if one opinion is entirely censored but I still see everything posted matching the approved opinion, that will have an enormous sway over how my worldview develops, in a way different from seeing strangers agreeing on those same things.

There is only one model structure that can be put on the category of small categories for which the weak equivalences coincide with honest equivalences of categories. It’s called the Joyal-Tierney model structure. You can define the suspension of an object in any model category as the homotopy pushout to two terminals, then define an abstract notion of a sphere in any model category by setting the 0-sphere as the coproduct of two terminals and the (n+1)-sphere as the suspension of the n-sphere.

A small category is a CW-complex if and only if it is a groupoid.

What I’m reading is he was right on the money about the pixel character being a more appealing love interest.

The first one is correct as others have said, but the second one is not ambiguous enough to confuse anyone nor weird enough for anyone to bat an eye at, you’re fine with either.

Also somewhat proud (with slight embarrassment in admitting that) of this comment on the thread for the news article “Porn industry jumps into presidential campaign, targeting Project 2025”. The reply I got was a great gag as well.