380 karma · joined April 22, 2015
But how much of this is selection bias and how much of it is really having an impact? This reminds me of https://thecorrespondent.com/100/the-new-dot-com-bubble-is-h...
>Economists at Facebook conducted 15 experiments that showed the enormous impact of selection effects. A large retailer launched a Facebook campaign. Initially it was assumed that the retailer’s ad would only have to be shown 1,490 times before one person actually bought something. But the experiment revealed that many of those people would have shopped there anyway; only one in 14,300 found the webshop because of the ad. In other words, the selection effects were almost 10 times stronger than the advertising effect alone!
Sure you can measure clicks and how many convert, but that does not necessarily measure the effect of the ad. I think most of the time the true effect of an advertisement is usually unknown (what is the difference in outcome of using the ad vs not using the ad?) and I suspect that in a large number of cases the impact of advertising is significantly overestimated. Perhaps people won't find out until they are forced to cut back on ad spending then they might realize that it isn't as important as they thought.
https://www.wwf.fr/sites/default/files/doc-2018-10/lpr_livin...
"the world’s ecological footprint will continue to grow between 2000 and 2050 from a level 20 per cent above the Earth’s biological capacity to a level between 80 and 120 percent above it (Figure 30). In these scenarios, 9 billion people in 2050 would require between 1.8 and 2.2 Earth-sized planets in order to sustain their consumption of crops, meat, fish, and wood, and to hold CO2 levels constant in the atmosphere.... Two World3 scenarios were chosen: a standard scenario, which assumes no policy changes over the next 50 years; and an accelerated technology scenario, which assumes significant improvements in resource efficiency. In the standard scenario, the HEF grows and peaks around 2040 at about 150 per cent above the Earth’s biological capacity, while the HWI climbs to around 20 per cent above the 2000 level in 2030 but then falls away rapidly, as the Earth’s productive ecosystems are no longer able to sustain high levels of human consumption. In the accelerated technology scenario the HEF reaches a maximum of 60 per cent above biological capacity in 2020 and then declines back to the 2000 level by 2050, as more resource-efficient technologies reduce the footprint, while the HWI climbs and remains at almost 20 per cent above 2000 levels"
Also similar in nature is safety engineering. You think about how to make the system fail easily and unexpectedly and you avoid those.
You also try to prioritize the highest risk/lowest cost issues in these. These all involve risk management, which is also critical in investing and is a major reason why Munger has been so successful - he only goes for low risk/high reward plays and bets big on the few opportunities that he gets.
BHE (Berkshire Energy) is actually heavily based on wind generation and investing heavily in renewables, more than most utilities in the US. They are basically leaders in this area:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tN5pRtFeHEo
For the climate resolution, listen to Warren's answer on this in 2019: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xELxlV0-4yA
They let their business operate fairly independently and want to avoid creating bureaucracy which doesn't create value which is how they generally operate.
In Charlie's words: "We're about as good as you can get [in renewables] and you should worry about something else... If this isn't good enough for you we can't help you."
If we are able to colonize other parts of the solar system and export industry off the planet that will allow for several more decades and probably centuries (millenia?) of growth. Hopefully civilization will survive conflict long enough to make this transition.
[1] https://arxiv.org/abs/2005.05244 [2] https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2021/03/15/young-pe...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox
We can't simply just rely on improvements in efficiency to solve these problems.
" Against their long‑term context, currently depressed sovereign real rates are in fact converging ‘back to historical trend’ — a trend that makes narratives about a ‘secular stagnation’ environment entirely misleading, and suggests that — irrespective of particular monetary and fiscal responses — real rates could soon enter permanently negative territory. "
"if historical trends are extrapolated, R-G will soon reach permanently negative territory –a first since at least medieval times."
"Whatever the precise dominant driver – simply extrapolating such long-term historical trends suggests that negative real rates will not just soon constitute a “new normal” – they will continue to fall constantly. By the late 2020s, global short-term real rates will have reached permanently negative territory. By the second half of this century, global long-term real rates will have followed."
Many wait for that single moment when the line is crossed for everyone to stand up and take (non-violent) action and speak out, but that moment never comes. That's not how this works. Authoritarianism rises gradually and relies on people looking away from it, unable to confront inconvenient truths. The time to speak out is early and not to wait for that moment for others to do so.
Lindsay Graham has repeatedly sought to weaken encryption and mandate backdoors and key escrow. Also in June this year following the EARN IT Act he introduced the Lawful Access To Encrypted Data Act (LAED) which would mandate backdoors:
https://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/blog/2020/06/there%E2%80%99s-n...
LEAD is extreme and has little support. It is widely believed that the LAED was not intended to be passed but is meant to help pass the EARN IT Act by making the EARN IT Act seem like a more moderate and reasonable piece of legislation.
The EARN IT Act is really a ploy by Lindsay Graham and others to bypass Congress on this issue which they cannot otherwise get passed, and allow a small group of people who are not even security experts to develop regulation and mandates (which will probably be against encryption) under the guise of fighting child porn.
ACE2 is also found in several other organs in which they are seeing multiple organ failure with this virus so it likely is can bind to them and contribute to damage in these organs including the heart but as OP says there are multiple ways the heart could be affected
Loss of ACE2 receptors in the heart can cause impaired heart function
In other settings, yes you can still gather leaked bits and use them to reduce the search space until it is small enough to brute force. I've had my own elliptic curve implementation broken through differential power analysis from a leakage due to a conditional branch just like the one in this paper. It leaked only a single bit and it was leaking a bit of the key or a nonce but the least significant bit of an intermediate value in the same way that the LSB was leaked in this paper. All I did was select one of two results, both of which were computed using the same number of operations every time and discarded the other based on whether a result was odd or even. Simply branching is generally enough to leak. After running many operations using the same key on different data you could reduce the search space down to one which could be brute forced in a few minutes. Both the OP's implementation and mine also tried to use some side channel countermeasures, but leaking this single bit was enough. You simply cannot use any conditional branching or memory addressing based on secret information [4-5]. Even being aware of this, it was not obvious how to avoid this conditional branch while implementing the algorithm (the math can be reformulated to avoid it).
We did find that randomized projective coordinates[6] significantly helped in our case (we had already implemented this but was disabled by default). This probably only makes it more difficult to extract the secret but it should be implemented in constant time.
[1] https://www.nccgroup.trust/globalassets/our-research/us/whit...
[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QCsvBFFLsqE
[3] https://www.nccgroup.trust/us/our-research/return-of-the-hid...
[4] https://cr.yp.to/highspeed/coolnacl-20120725.pdf
[5] https://www.bearssl.org/constanttime.html
[6] http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.1.5...
"You need all the objects that come with it to make it work"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L0KuAx1COEk
The approach and physics are well established. This seems like the quickest way to break the net power gain barrier with the lowest risk and lowest cost today and will allow individual labs and entrepreneurs to iterate on the implementation and engineering much more rapidly.
I don't think 23andme is currently reporting on health risks anymore until they get things cleared with the FDA, though, and the other reports they currently offer are not really useful. You still have access to the raw data, though, and can use a third party like https://www.snpedia.com/index.php/Promethease to analyze the data. It will generate a report for you, but remember these reports will try to link your SNPs to pretty much any studies available, even when there is very little evidence or low confidence of the interpretation. Don't take most of the results seriously unless it is well studied and well established. This may be difficult to determine sometimes unless you have a background in science or medicine, and it is a good idea to consult a medical professional first if there is something that you think is significant and concerns you.
There are also many times that people have been unhappy because I have my phone off and unable to reach me. There are also other times you want to be available.
Unfortunately, if your phone is owned then they can just exfiltrate the data when normal data transfer occurs. The data will still need to be stored for transmission later though.
With the iphone, you also need to monitor Bluetooth and WiFi in addition to cellular activity. Hopefully they will also monitor these.