I read the paper, and the evidence is very circumstantial. The fact that they argued the method of creating the rooted phylogenetic tree was not the right method, offered their preferred alternative, claimed it would likely give the result they wanted, but didn’t actually perform the analysis doesn’t come off well to me. They also seem to believe the COVID-19 pandemic started in a lab, and that the same (as they say) “experts” were involved really suggests they are conspiracy theorists who don’t trust the experts and believe in coordinated coverups of multiple lab leak events by this group of people. Believing in multiple conspiracy theories that are widely rejected in respected publications definitely doesn’t lead them to sound very credible.
That isn’t included the percentage that didn't change, because they aren’t interested in picking up and leaving the country just because they don’t like the government.
Not really, that theorem says there are true things that cannot be proven, whereas this question is more about running out of proofs that you can make.
Also only differences are stored, so if your files don’t change much each backup costs very little. I keep hundreds of backups for the previous year of changes, and it uses less than double the amount of storage the files take up. You can also enable compression, which I do, so it’s even smaller.
I use backblaze storage with Kopia, which supports using object lock. Every time a backup is made the objects for it are locked for a configurable amount of time. I use 30 days, so an attacker would have to compromise my backup software for a month before being able to erase my backups.
Historically it is a term used positively, for example in the expression ‘stay woke’ (1930s). So it is not really a reclamation, but rather a recent relegation by right wing people to a negative connotation. I have however heard some people legitimately use it in a positive manner, and some further reading on the Wikipedia page seems to support that even recently there are political leaders using it in a pro-racial equity sense.
I would use the same definition as you, but that’s the only definition I can think of that would leave one thinking many people engage in animal cruelty. Unless your entire circle of friends is an illegal dogfighting ring.
It just seems very broad since people use it many ways “get woke” vs “the woke mob.” At least in the US it is used by people in both good and bad ways.
A DNS based blocker wouldn’t block this, because the subscribe prompt is almost definitely being done by a script from the main NYT domain. The DNS blocker only blocks things that come from domains only used for things that should be blocked, and can’t differentiate between what type of content is being loaded (script vs image vs raw HTML) and definitely not between different things in the same class (paywall script vs the script that makes the buttons work).
I think that’s mostly driven by regulatory capture and the fact that lobbyists can drive regulation. If our government actually worked for the people, we could actually enforce monopoly laws, and the SEC (or equivalent in countries besides the US) would actually prevent mergers that threaten competition. The government is supposed to prevent this kind of behavior, but they have basically been bought out.
As for how to stop that from happening, I’m not sure. I think it would require at least getting rid of the two party system, because that stifles competition in the governance space. That means that even though there are probably lots of voters who would vote for a real candidate who would break monopolies, there is no such candidate available. But in order for that to work we would have to switch to a different voting method, like ranked-choice (or one of the even more fair ones).
I read the paper, and the evidence is very circumstantial. The fact that they argued the method of creating the rooted phylogenetic tree was not the right method, offered their preferred alternative, claimed it would likely give the result they wanted, but didn’t actually perform the analysis doesn’t come off well to me. They also seem to believe the COVID-19 pandemic started in a lab, and that the same (as they say) “experts” were involved really suggests they are conspiracy theorists who don’t trust the experts and believe in coordinated coverups of multiple lab leak events by this group of people. Believing in multiple conspiracy theories that are widely rejected in respected publications definitely doesn’t lead them to sound very credible.