> Intel™ SGX™
What difference does this make (genuine question)?
116 karma · joined October 17, 2015
What difference does this make (genuine question)?
For french speaking: https://youtu.be/47qiwqKRef0
Fascinating.
see point #1
> without any scientific basis
see point #2, plus all the hindsight of using this drug since 1949
> during Ebola we were all convinced that drug by Gilead was going to work
You mean Remdesivir, a drug which is barely 5 years old in the clinical world? For that one yes, precautionary principle should have a much higher precedence over the urgency, but for a well known drug like chloroquine which is normally available OTC, sorry saving lives comes first.
I take it you are not on the front line and have no immediate responsibility of the life and death of those infected.
1. Chloroquine has been used since 1949 for treating a range of diseases including malaria, and is therefore a well known drug which causes complication only in rare cases because its side effects and use are well known, it's even given in prevention to healthy people travelling in certain parts of the world
2. Pr Raoult has demonstrated 13 years ago its effectiveness against coronaviruses
3. The current CV19 pandemic is killing people at an alarming rate
4. In Europe hospitals are stretched beyond capacity meaning more are dying for lack of space/equipment/attention/treatment, and not because of CV19 itself
5. As a world renown specialist Pr Raoult has been in contact with doctors in China who were the first to use it to treat CV19 and observe its effectiveness in greatly reducing the viral load
6. As director of a research hospital Pr Raoul is on the front line for handling CV19 patients and is responsible for making life and death decisions not just for his own life but for all patients arriving in mass to his door
7. There is no other alternative treatment to date for CV19, some other drugs are promising but are either much newer and less known, or heavier on side effects and cost
Now take into account the above facts, imagine yourself in Pr Raoult shoes, and realise that withholding the use of chloroquine in such dire situation, where the luxury of a full study cannot be afforded and the drug is very well known, can be considered not only immoral but also criminal. In other words when the choice is either to let people die with a "wait and see" attitude, or to save lives by significantly reducing the viral load and infection with a well known drug, the choice is clear. Another way to view the situation: you are a policeman stopping an ambulance not respecting the driving code and driving too fast, and then learn there is a dying patient in the back, what do you do?
Also Pr Raoult does not claim he has done a full study. Those that get finicky and still want to have a full study before allowing its use are irresponsible people who have no idea of what's it's like on the ground. Those that criticise him as a lone advocate are really out of touch with reality: he is definitely not alone, he's got 200 staff under his responsibility, 80 of which are researchers, he has been on the forefront of his field worldwide (see his wikipedia page), knows very well how to perform perfect academic studies, and is and has been constantly talking with specialists and doctors around the world since the earliest time of the pandemic.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Iraq_War#Iraq's_u...
Edit: for the record:
https://downdetector.com/status/twitter/archive/
https://labs.spotify.com/2019/11/12/spotifys-event-delivery-...
Earlier in this thread I wrote about data being the top priority [1], the raw material, that we rarely give data the primary focus it deserves and instead focus too much on the processing side. More concretely: dashboards showing instrumented processing clusters give a biased view that does not focus on what matters at the end of the day. What we also need are dashboards showing data flowing between sinks and sources, data quantity, data quality, etc. Sure resource utilization and efficiency matters, but only after we can validate we still have the right output, and that input is of proper quality. If output contains garbage, is it bad processing or is it garbage from the input? And if something is wrong with processing, do we know the impact downstream? In other words instrumentation should include data sensors, not just processing sensors: data counters, validation points, invariants, etc. Because at the end of the day, when the power goes off, do you know what's left to recover? Do you prefer your customers telling you about an unfulfilled order or do you rather want it to be detected earlier? If you get audited for GDPR, do you have a map of your sensitive data? In terms of security, is it about protecting clusters and containers, or is it about protecting the data? Once you get the data side right many things become simpler, but if you get it wrong, as we often do, we create a world of problems. Giving data its proper place in our engineering practices will certainly change our industry for the better and bring it closer to "reality" with less danger of veering into the virtual for the sake of it.
In a world where software is increasingly involved in human activities this would have a great impact. However I don't think we should stop there, as I believe this is part of a larger trend I'm concerned about: the idea that, not just in software development but in most human endeavors, we're increasingly favoring spending time in virtual/man-made spaces and activities, at the expense of the real world, the place and time we're at, nature and the environment. As if we want to escape the physical conditions we're in: whether it's our body, our environment, society, the work we do, etc. When one can't see a way to influence the real world a tendency would be to start operating in a virtual one where we get the illusion to have an effect, make some money, be an expert, etc. Oh and let's not forget this desire to put as much tech between us and the real world, as if we don't want to experience it directly, it's too icky, and instead need devices to offer an indirect perception: wearable tech, navigation by GPS, remote controlling tractors in vast industrialized agricultural fields, etc.
A friend working in a supermarket chain told me this story: he often advised a younger manager to consider better maintenance procedures of their A/C system, but to no effect. Now that my friend is retiring soon this younger manager is proposing to make an excel chart to track energy consumption in order to optimize setpoints, and asks my friend for his approval. Really? Approve perception to be limited to an excel chart? Isn't that the same as leaving the windows open and wanting to change the setpoint?
However when I look at the accidental complexity we have created on the processing side, I wonder if it does not surpass the essential complexity of dealing with data.
In other words: maybe we have yet to create the proper concepts and tools to deal with data, all this time the industry created a tower of babel (and of overspent $$$) with our languages, frameworks, containers, etc.
No amount of processing power matters if you don't have the data.
Everyone in the industry focuses too much on the processing side: objects, functions, containers, VMs, k8s, etc. but nobody really gives proper attention to data, its provenance, where it stays and where it goes, etc. I'm not saying engineers don't think about these things, they obviously have to think about it at some point. It's just that data is always accessory to the story. It's like processing is the cool kid and data is the stinky one nobody wants to approach unless you have to. Look at the 12 factor principles for example, where is data in there? How easy is it to take data from one place/cloud/database to another? Data is the raw material, it needs to be the primary concern in programming languages and architectures, not objects or functions, containers or whatever, those come after, not first.
1. You can't change a record after the fact because if you do it's no longer reliable, it's been tampered with :)
2. Yes, existing records only. You can always create a new record pointing to the old or any other record.
3. Hope not, would make it unpractical to handle verbose facts.
I guess clojure really twisted my mind ;)
Edit: if you plan to use a USB to lightning connector for your iPhone X then indeed the 100W is needed as apparently this device splits power evenly (50W+50W) between the two USB C. A comment however says it's not fast charging the iPhoneX when they are both used, so now I understand your dilemma.
Who in their right mind wants to send their offsprings to butchery in war? It can only happen if you first create meaning and justify the war (e.g. a clear danger worse than war) if you expect people to follow.
So the real issue here is how easy it is to manipulate humans, to make them act like robots programmed by mainstream media so eager to show us a danger and the difference between "us" and "them".
This does not mean there is no intentionality though. Is it really a coincidence if some weapon manufacturers invest in media companies? Is it a coincidence if the same source of finance feed both sides of a conflict?
A more flexible approach as taken by Datomic is to define schemas at the level of attributes, meaning an entity (table) does not have a schema, only attributes do. This requires attribute names to be within namespaces which can certainly be seen as equivalent to table names, but they don't have to, namespaces could also refer to an entire domain/subdomain/org/whatever.
Defining schema at the level of attributes provides a greater level of flexibility because client only declare/specify/depend-on a partial schema that only lists the attributes it needs. It also helps avoiding the "place oriented programming" approach of result sets, whereby attributes must be in a certain order, and if one does not have a value, you have to introduce NULL values.
If you want to improve your own thought process rather than your skill in just one programming language, then clojure(script) would be a better choice. Once you've been through the learning and practice curve, the benefits of having decomplected your mind will spill to other languages.