In this case, it's design. Increasing social injustice is the whole point, because that ensures increased political power for those who campaign on social justice.
So in other words all of the non-debunked reasons for <30 to get vaccinated are all about individual health, and have no impact on anyone else's health.
The problem with this theory is that the moderation team has been entirely supportive of Ms. 'Kill' so far, and actively works to silence dissent about her position in public Rust spaces. (Maybe not so much as the unofficial mods, but I personally was on the receiving end of llogiq's overreaction in /r/rust to any dissent.) I believe they would take her side in the dispute which Klabnik vaguebooked about a few months ago.
> Is there any good way to craft a message like this?
"We are resigning and our reasons have been shared privately with X group. <eom>"
But since the goal of the whole exercise is to generate publicity and drama, the above was an unacceptable approach and the approach actually taken was highly effective.
I think that's an uncharitable interpretation. If your remit is to deal with issues like this, but you find the structure is broken enough that you can't do what you see as your job, what do you do?
Going public may be against the point of the group, but it might also be the only way seen to fix the problem and address the problems that prevent your group from doing its job.
So you're left with the unenviable option of explicitly doing what your team is not supposed to do in order to try to fix the team so it can function in the future. The responsible thing to do at that point would be to resign, so someone else can come in and gain the benefits you fought for, and your prior breaking of the rules does not taint the team.
I think that's the charitable view. I don't know if it's correct, but I do think it's worth considering.
Then don’t make a whole big public announcement about it. As someone from the outside this just reads like a post specifically to generate drama and attention but not giving details as to direct it at anyone in particular.
> Then don’t make a whole big public announcement about it.
I don't understand. How do you resign from a public project without resigning from that public project? If it is not about the resignation but about the message, do you think that a "we are resigning as a whole team that was made pbulic and we do not provide any public reason for that" would work any better?
And what, leave the Rust community not knowing that there's no CoC team because they've all resigned over something, but the community wasn't informed?
It's not like there's some membership card with paid dues. Their responsibility was to anyone that viewed themselves as part of the Rust community, and consumes anything to do with that community (whether or not they put anything into it).
Not informing all the people of that community because it appeases random public commenters would be a far worse failure of their duties than letting the general public gossip.
Employees have no duty to find replacements for their employer. There's especially no moral duty if your bosses are being jerks. I'd say that logic applies to this situation as well.
This isn't a post, it's a PR. If your names are listed in a public Git repository, then you need to have them removed if you resign. This means a PR and a review of that PR, which is exactly what happened here.
Alternative: They step down without an announcement, get replaced, somebody pieces it together and posts it on HN or reddit or something, and now you have all the same drama from announcing it publicly, plus all the added drama from the "secret step down".
I don't think it was overly dramatic, but otherwise I agree with your point about pointing out another group with whom it has been shared, specifically a neutral party, if public muck-raking must be avoided at all costs. I made a similar point below: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29308197
> Pfizer’s drug has protease inhibitor activity like ivermectin, but they are a very different kettle of fish on a variety of levels
and
> Dr Walter explained that PF-07321332 is a “direct acting antiviral drug”, while ivermectin “has multiple mechanisms of action on animal and human cells as well as some serendipitous antiviral activity”.
This sounds much more like "yes, but" to me than "false". And indeed, the rating given is not "false" but "Missing context". The headline is certainly accurate (ivermectin is not the same drug as Pfizermectin) but also fake news in that it is a strawman; no one has claimed that they are literally the same drug.
The interesting claim, if clearly stated, is "The mechanism of action of Pfizermectin for treating COVID-19 is as a protease inhibitor. Ivermectin is, among other antiparisitic effects which are usually more interesting, also a protease inhibitor." That claim is validated by the evidence given in the fact-check.
Moreover it's worth calling out a known lie in the fact-check (which is included entirely gratuitously as it doesn't have anything to do with the headline or the verdict or even my "interesting claim" above): "some of [the mechanisms of action of Ivermectin] could have unwanted, even dangerous side effects." Ivermectin is on the WHO list of essential medicines and is considered extremely safe, with just one known complication related to a particular parasitic infection IIRC. I can only imagine that the reporter, having not gotten any definitive proof for the desired 'false' verdict from Dr Walter, pushed and prodded until eliciting this absurd and false but politically expedient statement.
I wonder how Dr Walter would describe the difference between "animal and human cells". The statement makes it sound like he's a Young Earth creationist.
One criticism[1] of the above linked study, the one that states Ivermectin acts as a 3CL protease inhibitor, is that it uses an "in silico approach" (computer simulation).
The way that we know PF-07321332 is a 3CL protease inhibitor is via an "in silico approach".
It's important to note that the dosage of Ivermectin required to act as a protease inhibitor would be way above the accepted levels for human use.
Even still, this "animal/horse drug" rhetoric along with asymmetric acceptance of evidence is what lead me to want to understand more about the ivermectin controversy. It smells more like propaganda than science. Then, the sheer number of studies showing positive outcomes made it hard for me to accept that all the science was bad. Astral Codex did a great job of explaining why the studies were flawed.
Sure, and I almost edited my original comment when I made it to clarify that as far as we know, Ivermectin isn't a very good protease inhibitor. That's what the fact-check should have said. Instead, we were fed a pile of garbage because the garbage sounds more comforting to those who emotionally need Ivermectin to be horse medicine.
But I don't think that Scott has done more than offer a suggestion as to how the studies might be flawed; no matter how compelling the suggestion, it isn't evidence. Otherwise you're just consuming more nicely-dressed garbage, which is even more dangerous because you get to feel superior to those consuming the normal garbage.
What would constitute good evidence for the worms theory is, you know, a study actually studying that. Otherwise the theory is just assuming that a lot of the people benefited by Ivermectin do have worms, when that hasn't even been measured.
The worm theory was amusing but that's not what changed my mind. For me, it was "The Studies" section where Scott goes over each study and discussed why they were deemed to be low quality or suspect.
But... he didn't? Most of the studies he found no fault with. This seems to be a striking example of alternate facts you have picked up from the same article...
Not sure you're reading it right there - "I think this basically agrees with my analyses above - the trends really are in ivermectin’s favor, but once you eliminate all the questionable studies there are too few studies left to have enough statistical power to reach significance."
So I'll revise - studies have been done, but no conclusions about positive efficacy can be supported.
"I think the conventional wisdom - that the most extreme ivermectin supporters were mostly gullible rubes who were bamboozled by pseudoscience - was basically accurate."
But that is literally what this article is, and Scott admits as much! He says that he chose worms as the most "trollish" possible response, despite a lack of any strong evidence at all that worms are the answer.
You’re totally right. I was more referring to his review of the merits of the various studies, which as a statistician I actually agreed with - I mostly read the article to understand the history of these studies, having no prior familiarity beyond the high level understanding that the evidence was weak. I expected this article to largely be pro-ivermectin-as-underdog given that the mainstream opinion is that it isn't, but I suppose this fits even more. His claim that it’s all able to be chalked up to worms is dubious at best - selection bias of one form or another (publication, metric selection, etc) seems substantially more likely. Sure enough, though his readership is credulously adopting this theory just as easily as they adopt his other contrarian points.
The funny thing is that for all of their supposed smarts the bulk of the commenters in favor of the 'new' worm theory are jumping on it, just like they jumped on Ivermectin in the first place. It is in a way an interesting experience to see this happen in real-time.
If they're anything like me, they've always wanted the ivermectin thing to be worms-at-best-crap-at-worst, but have refused to accept "shut up and stop listening to the wrong science" as evidence in favor of that proposition. From that perspective their behavior is not only rational, it's far more rational and pro-science than the mainstream. Not surprising given who the audience is.
In this case, it's design. Increasing social injustice is the whole point, because that ensures increased political power for those who campaign on social justice.