How certain are we about the low mutation rate? Since many millions of people get the flu each year, there are a lot of opportunities for mutation. Also, perhaps it takes a long time for a mutation to spread widely enough for us to be aware of it. Would it already be apparent if some mutation of coronavirus existed that overcame resistance and allowed reinfection? It seems like the selection pressure in favor of such a mutation would be weak when very little of the population is immune.
The credit card companies don’t seem to have any trouble applying my cash back rewards to my account balance without sending me a check. But if I do cancel my account and end up with a positive balance, they do send a check. Seems like basic accounting to me, not some sort of wizardry like you suggest. Mailing checks is probably more expensive if anything.
> it's very likely a paid hit piece against bug bounty companies.
A thought on the incentives behind such a paid piece. There is a big free rider problem here. All pentesters, or all opponents of big bounty programs, would benefits equally from a hit piece, or to be more specific, would benefit proportionally to their market share. So suspicion on who would pay for a hit piece should fall mostly on entities who control a substantial portion of the market share, or some kind of lobbying organization/cartel representing multiple entities that add up to a substantial market share. Or some entity that makes a financially bad decision and ignores the free rider problem to fund the hit piece - but at that point, you don’t need the hit piece to be paid at all. It’s just ideologically motivated.
My intuition is that you are correct that some marginal logistics operators will go belly-up, but I think the end result of that is a lot of equipment becomes available at low prices, and the cost of running a logistics operation goes down. Labor probably also gets cheaper with all the people who have been laid off. Anyone with cash can invest at great prices. So while there would be some disruption, there should be enough capacity to go around.
I think it’s pretty normal to care about truth in advertising. Also, there have been many revelations in the past few years about internet surveillance. And to top it off, the EARN IT act that’s currently being considered in the US Congress is ultimately aiming to ban end-to-end encryption so passions about this topic are running extra hot. Put all that together with millions of people stuck at home being forced to use Zoom meetings, and you have the ingredients for a pretty good rage cocktail!
Often I’ve seen that the one person calling in the most senior person in the meeting, or anyone involved in sales. Someone who is traveling around to meet in person a lot. Often they are calling from the road or an airport. The mobile phone connection is more reliable than mobile data in these scenarios.
>I don't think so, to me an internship is temporary by nature and does not have a "guaranteed" job at the end based on good performance.
If you do a great job in a FAANG internship then you will get a full time offer at the end. Does the probationary period you propose have a lower performance bar than is applied post-internship? If so then it seems it wouldn’t achieve FAANG’s standards.
> The selection process is so competitive right now that I think plenty of people would be happy for such a change if it meant a more reasonable interview process. Plenty of strong candidates are being thrown away over arbitrary metrics right now anyway.
FAANG doesn’t need to attract more weaker candidates who can’t pass the interview, they are more concerned about getting strong candidates who have multiple offers to pick them. For less competitive candidates there are contract positions.
Sure, that’s exactly what an internship is and it’s why these companies offer it. If you gave a similar opportunity to people who are already in the industry, you would have a major adverse selection problem where the better candidates would never pick a “probationary” job with second-class status over a normal job.
I think given the growth these cloud providers are having every year, expanding to meet the needs of a temporary increase in demand looks more like moving forward projects that were already planned. It’s not like they are going to have to build a bunch of datacenters they will never need again.
Is there anyone you worked with before who is now employed doing something you’d like to do? Have you tried asking them for a referral? Referrals from former coworkers are vastly more important than your resume.
Often I see tests that spend a lot of time mocking internal components of the application. Such tests are verifying the implementation details instead of the functionality. They often need to be thrown out if you do some refactoring, even if that refactoring didn’t change the behavior of the program at all. The kind of text described in this article should work just fine in that case, achieving the desired goal of showing whether your refactor caused any behavior changes.
In my experience, tests like this actually aren’t hard to maintain. The test can print out a diff between the expected and actual result when there is a failure, so you can check if the new behavior is expected and easily copy-paste to update the test if desired.
I thought the headline was hard to understand so I found where the 30% number came from in the article:
> Four climate models for which FWI could be calculated show that the probability of a Fire Weather Index this high has increased by at least 30% since 1900 as a result of anthropogenic climate change.
I’d find local politicians who block housing projects more credible if they were also telling companies to go away and hire people somewhere else. But in fact they keep approving giant office building projects.
The cause of high housing prices are low supply and high demand. Housing supply is growing at a slower rate than demand. There are two ways to solve this:
1) build a ton of housing to catch up with demand
2) shrink your local economy to decrease demand
If a lawmaker isn’t working on one of these two options, they do not actually support a platform of low housing prices.
Airbnb is only a small slice of housing demand. It’s an ugly slice, which makes the company a convenient punching bag for politicians who want to act like they are trying to make housing affordable. But the economy in high-demand cities will keep growing regardless of whether you kill Airbnb.
The best case scenario for controlling this epidemic is containment through contract tracing. That means we find people who have it, figure out who they got and from and gave it to, and get those people to quarantine. This strategy is failing in the US due to insufficient testing.
Everything I’m buying on Amazon now has delivery dates four days or more out, whereas in normal times it’s one or two days. Maybe they are quarantining packages. Or they could just be backed up due to increased demand.
I agree completely. My advice to anyone who isn’t employed as a stock trader is to buy when you have investable cash. In particular my comment was disagreeing with the advice to “wait a little while longer.”
I don’t think it’s possible to tell the difference between volatility and things picking back up. Somebody trying to follow this advice might have bought on Friday when the market went up.
The gap between the rates on the 30 year treasury and the 30 year mortgage increased from ~1.5% to over 3% and getting worse, before QE4 was announced (and this was already pricing in some fed action). This indicates that investors stopped buying mortgage-backed securities which would have eventually resulted in home buying activity stopping and a housing market crash. I don’t think any bailout for restaurants and bars or mortgage/rent holiday would have helped with this. I’m not saying such stimulus isn’t necessary, but it doesn’t replace fed policy.
I had the impression that Amazon’s house brand was about getting more margin by cutting out some layers of middlemen, not actually starting their own factories.
It’s interesting that we would interpret exactly the same behavior as evil when done by one faceless corporation and good when done by another. It’s almost as though our interpretations are a Rorschach test where we just repeat PR and media narratives, rather than the product of independent thought.
Knowing 1% of reported cases are asymptomatic doesn’t tell us anything about what percent of asymptomatic cases are unreported. Only way to know what is testing with random sampling from the asymptomatic general population.