158 karma · joined June 28, 2014
Long lived immunity against severe disease, driven by the T cell response against epitopes that are generally well preserved (>80% for spike protein, ~98% for non spike protein) [1]
≠
Immunity against infection, conferred by circulating neutralizing antibody, which last for a couple of months
Most vaccines blunt or prevent disease but not infection.
Secondly, I’m a little curious whether if we’d ideally administer Paxlovid in double- or triple-therapy, like we do for HIV and Hepatitis C, if we had the option. Will resistance arise to it in the next 12 - 24 months? Would love to be assuaged of my fear here.
I’d love to know why the FAA is ‘rolling over’ to the telecoms / FCC on this matter. The spectrum was in use for RADALTs before 5G and safety systems like autoland, used when visibility starts coming down to minimums, rely on them.
Seems to me that, like Canada, the US should just not allow 5G cell sites near critical areas around an airport.
Unfortunately the media has harmfully claimed that the vaccines are “less effective against Omicron” because of the reduction of prevention against any symptomatic disease… which they were never designed to prevent.
It’s not surprising that more are preferring to use Electron, React Native, or Flutter to develop apps than to live with the bare metal Xcode toolchain and Apple APIs.
The Java / Kotlin + Gradle and JS development ecosystems are dramatically easier to live, despite the fact that Apple has the resources to do dramatically better.
But they are fatiguing, unflattering, and uncomfortable, even for 20 or 30 minutes worth of usage.
Maybe in 10 years when the software stacks are ready the headsets will be good enough for passive use.
It seems we’re champing at the bit to get boosters going for non-immune compromised people before we even know what the correlate of protection against SARS-CoV-2 is.
New construction for a while at least will hopefully consider biosecurity and pandemic preparedness as concrete a threat as natural disasters.
It would probably be an opt-in thing for apps, but even without any fancy state replication it'd be just fine.
Like many of Apple’s developer tools, if you stick to the happy path, performance is great. Practically that means compiling your source into a single Swift module and keeping the number of modules low. If you are a “basic” iOS or macOS app with just a couple of 3p libraries things work great. Real world projects are drastically more messy...
- developing the lipid nanoparticles that the mRNA is delivered in, so your cells could actually take it up intact - figuring out how to get the mRNA to evade the immune system
https://www.statnews.com/2020/11/10/the-story-of-mrna-how-a-...
There is little selection pressure on the virus for the spike proteins to evolve and change. SARS-CoV-2 infects human cells just fine using its current spike protein. [1]
Multitasking is a kludgy set of gestures and dragging things around. There aren’t great affordances that help less sophisticated users understand the system.
The only chance a new user has to discover the new obtuse gesture-based cut, copy, and paste system is a single dialog, shown once, that you are liable to accidentally dismiss. Oh, and don’t forget shake to undo.
Seems that one thing Apple could do to help is offer a truly interactive user guide, manual, or tutorial like those we used to learn how mice worked in the 90s (“Mouse Practice”) [1]. Hey, maybe even add it to Tips.app.
(Personally, for me, I’ve gone from an iPad productivity skeptic, to preferring using the iPad Pro w/Magic Keyboard for any computing task short of programming.)
The Boeing situation is an interesting. With the Max, Boeing broke a core tenant of aircraft design that’s been a major factor in making airliners so safe. The MCAS system’s inputs (from angle of attack sensors) were not redundant. They should have been at least doubly-redundant given that the ultimate design of MCAS could pitch the aircraft down to such a degree that the pilot could not overcome it using their own control inputs. While Boeing probably should have redesigned its airframe instead of adding MCAS, it wasn’t a fundamentally bad idea to employ automation. The system behavior changed, but the company failed to re-assess the safety implications.
All Airbus products are fly-by-wire and there’s always some level of automation in play. It degrades to employ less protections when system faults occur. There’s a lesson there for Boeing!
+1 to Bazel - though it’s best suited for monorepos where you are building completely from source.
Aviation accounts for just 2% of CO2 emissions. While it’s good that Airbus is considering alternative, greener fuels, because aviation will continue to grow, there are larger determinants of GHG emissions and warming.
Also, how you even certify use of hydrogen on an aircraft will be a challenge. The current design for fuel has been well-understood for seventy-five years now, and like the rest of aviation some improvements have unfortunately but unavoidably come from tragedy (see TWA 800). You can throw a match into Jet-A and it won’t catch fire. Throw a match into a flask of hydrogen and you have a fire or explosion.
If they can pass that hurdle, you can almost be certain they know how and when crack open an algorithms textbook or use Google-fu to apply the right algorithm to solve a given problem.
(Knowing which data structures to reach for is far more applicable than being able to apply algorithms from memory. The article is good evidence of that.)