- 1 Dialectical Thesis: Social Media destroys and enhances our relationship [[Future]]
- Social media amplifies
- Control it instead of dismissing it
- Psychologists will be trained in [[Social Media Management]]
- 2 Social Media enhances and destroys our knowledge
- 3 Social Media intensifies our connection to the world and separates us from it
- Social media supports the shift from the physical into a psychological life-form
- Our environment becomes more and more human and less natural, but this human environment becomes another form of nature
- Everyone lives with and against something as his species and as the individual
- humans make a new nature
- Social Media is a glimpse of the future life in a virtual world where
- Social Media is about a self-infusion with meaning
- Our informational exchange was limited to our fingers and thumbs, on social media it is enhanced by click-functions that make memes, pictures and videos sharable.
- The flow of information increases.
- Social media is a lot of noise
- Social Media can let us connect to Being but also separates us from Being
- Social Media is a task to learn stoic kynism, it means to transform anger into bitter irony. But the problem is this might be only a form of sublime anger.
Regarding the mask-aspect, many people argue that there is no evidence for there effectiveness. ZEITONLINE has compiled an interesting list that might counter this claim:
Health Affairs__: Lyu & Wehby, 2020
Cochrane__: Jefferson et al., 2011
[Lancet: Chu et al., 2020 (https://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lancet/PIIS0140-6736(20)31142-9.pdf)
Proceedings__: Stutt et al., 2020
The American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene__: Leffler et al., 2020
Science__: Prather et al., 2020).
With the rise of GPT-3, a new program that can produce human-like texts, one of the major questions is whether Blockchain-technology can built an immunesystem to control fabricated information: https://www.leewayhertz.com/blockchain-fake-news/
A further valuable link: https://medium.com/swlh/gpt-3-and-in-the-beginning-was-the-word-part-1-2-38e67633c315
In the beginning was the word…
- In 2008, 1 month before the election, Obama beat Apple as the Marketer of the year: “Obama replaces last year’s winner, the video game system Nintendo”
- Obama’s social achievement was celebrated: “It’s the f***in’ Web 2.0 thing,”
- The Grand Old Party was, at that point, not yet organized on social media, so that Obama could “across multiple media platforms … drive a potent, single-minded design [while the campaign was] close to a level of design strategy from a great brand like Nike or Target.”
- Also the numbers are interesting: “Obama, who recently released his final campaign fundraising report, raised $745 million during the course of his campaign—more than double the amount raised by McCain. Obama’s fundraising total easily eclipsed the combined total of the 2004 presidential candidates, George Bush and John Kerry, who together generated $653 million. In the last five weeks before the general election, Obama broke his own personal record, culling in another $104 million. His campaign was so prolific that he has been left with $30 million in the bank, which he can stockpile for 2012.”
- Given these numbers, similar amounts granted to the Republican party would probably further nourish the myth of them being Sith Lords or reptilians. It might also be remarkable that Obama won also against the Lizard from Geico.
- Source: https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2008/12/obad-d06.html
Probably this topic cannot be discussed without a public outcry, but the question is interesting whether ultimately our body is entirely ours or whether the body shares a world which burden it with responsibilities. The belief in autonomy is quite simplistic in order to answer this important question.
This guy created a parkour for squirrels
So the quarantine needs to produce a new kind of economy. Brian May has just started to introduce a new idea. He asked people to jam with him and played the chords of one of their greatest Rock-Hits “Hammer to fall”. For all who do not know their song. Here is the original:
So many artists on Youtube followed his request. This one is my favorite so far: The All Star band:
Another great example:
Also single voices were possible, of course:
Or soloists were just waiting to be featured:
Brian may also introduced this challenge for their folk-like song love of my life
I always wondered of how to correctly present my ideas. I am not necessarily interested in the analytic fashion of giving a clear outline of your ideas. Peter Sloterdijk writes on the aspect of presenting your ideas in terms of well-arranged points:
“I have subdivided my ideas into four sections, which shows, by the way, that I am not addressing you as a member of the theological fraternity. Theologians, as you know, arrange their thoughts preferably into three chapters because they like transposing themselves into God’s interiority, where the triad sets the tone, or sometimes into seven sections, if they are lifting their voice in imitation of the creator, or ten, if they are trying to match the author of the Decalogue tablets. This evening, however, I shall try my luck with the classical philosophical quaternity, which is based on the assumption that to tell the truth one must be able to count up to four”
There are some rhetorical guidelines of how to construct texts. For some reason, it has become common to break a whole into parts and to structure your argument in points. But how to identify the correct line of breakage? Maybe our method is just an arbitrary construction and, in fact, our lives develop in wholes. Even here the question of parts and whole plays a crucial role.
This is an interesting study, mostly for its insufficient conclusion.
In the experiment 4 Sars-II-patients had to cough 5 times without, with a surgical mask and a cotton mask on a petri-dish that was 20cm (sorry no freedom units here) apart from their face (please don’t tell me that there are not enough individuals involved. This is an experiment not a study. You do not need 1000 people coughing on petri dishes).
So here are the results:
“The median viral loads of nasopharyngeal and saliva samples from the 4 participants were 5.66 log copies/mL and 4.00 log copies/mL, respectively. The median viral loads after coughs without a mask, with a surgical mask, and with a cotton mask were 2.56 log copies/mL, 2.42 log copies/mL, and 1.85 log copies/mL, respectively. All swabs from the outer mask surfaces of the masks were positive for SARS–CoV-2, whereas most swabs from the inner mask surfaces were negative”
Very tiny difference right? So the conclusion should be very clear:
“In conclusion, both surgical and cotton masks seem to be ineffective in preventing the dissemination of SARS–CoV-2 from the coughs of patients with COVID-19 to the environment and external mask surface.”
Now, point is that the conclusion is not wrong but very insufficient. Though it is true that the virus is not filtered entirely the viral load is reduced significantly.
You might say: Wait mister! Where do you see a significant difference? From 2.56 log copies/mL to 2.42 log copies/mL that’s bullshit. I throw my face-mask into the trash right now.
The secret lies in the little word “log”, which indicates that it has to do something with logarithms. In this specific case it means that the viral load got reduced from about 388 viruses per milliliter (sorry no freedom units again) to roughly 288 viruses, a significant reduction. The reduction is much more for cotton masks. From 388 to about 71, which is a reduction of about 80 percent.
So the point is masks have a considerable effect, though it does not filter the virus entirely. Nevertheless, there is some indication that the amount of viruses that infect you might affect how sick you get and also keep in mind that it rarely happens that somebody coughs 5 times through his mask in your face like 20 non-freedom-units away from you. If he wears a cotton mask and you stand 2 meters away and maybe even hold a petri dish in front of your face, nothing might happen.
So why did this study come up with this insufficient conclusion? Because it was intended for medical staff. They need better masks. They need something that works 100 percent.