peytn

How do you tackle issues with manipulation? Can’t I get together with my friends and wash trade each other’s tokens?

Luckily it’s unlikely to gain traction. Hospital execs still bring up how they were screwed over by Google 10 years ago whenever you try to sell them on consumer health records products. Their malfeasance is legendary at this point.

Feels like late-stage USSR. The propaganda machine keeps churning well after the people stop listening. In my new home away from the Bay, people could not care less.

> I'm not sure what anyone can do about this situation

You can become a dissident. That’s how things change. But as you’ve identified, bravery in this case won’t be rewarded, unlike what happens in movies.

I dunno, it’s better on HN to give people the benefit of the doubt. The overlap of software engineer and conservative punditry consumer is pretty small relatively speaking. It’s not like the ideas put forth are too convoluted for somebody to have on their own.

Worth mentioning that one of the authors happens to be on the board of a biotech developing a stroke product.

CCP is sensitive to its unemployment problem and needs the jobs for stability.

> All cohorts included patients older than 10 years who had an index event on or after Jan 20, 2020

There were lockdowns on Jan 20, 2020? I thought lockdown measures basically eliminated influenza diagnoses—-were the majority of control cases diagnosed before lockdown measures were implemented?

> All cohorts included patients older than 10 years who had an index event on or after Jan 20, 2020

I thought lockdown measures basically eliminated influenza diagnoses. Lockdown measures also occurred well after Jan 20, 2020.

What’s the temporal distribution of control cases vs. COVID cases? Were the vast majority of control cases diagnosed before lockdown measures?

The realistic threat likely isn’t a designed backdoor, but some late-stage bug (especially if server-side) that caused part of the E2E encryption or privacy story to get punted. Who would really block ship on that, esp. with hardware impact?

Geez, I’m glad I live in a society where that’s not seen as necessary. I don’t need to invoke the power of the state to take a vacation.

People died in the case of the AZ vaccine. It feels like spin to call that “working.”

The guy who says “your margin is my opportunity” doesn’t want to influence taxes on the margins of others to keep competitors down? Instead he cares about road maintenance funded specifically through corporate tax hikes?

Why wouldn’t he just advocate for road maintenance?

Edit: whoops, I didn’t read his actual statement. Tricked by CNN! Still, I’m a little skeptical of ascribing motivations to people like Bezos that aren’t in line with his past actions, but instead are in line with my personal politics, which is why I’m skeptical.

Wouldn’t that encourage future lawsuits from other patent trolls?

Working from home means setting boundaries at home. I don’t want to set those boundaries at home.

I’d rather set those boundaries in a workplace. Maybe it’s sometimes hard to set those boundaries in the workplace, but to me it feels like the appropriate place. My home is not, and will never be, an office.

It sounds like you’re assuming I’d want unqualified people to comment freely in an open debate, and also assuming that every biologist/chemist/virologist came to the same conclusion.

Those two assumptions don’t make sense to me, sorry.

I wanted to have heard from the biologists/chemists/virologists who had it right from the start. I don’t recall hearing all sides of the issue. Somebody out there surely saw this coming.

I never said laypeople. All biologists/chemists/virologists came to the same conclusion?

How is that possible?

I never said laypeople. How did the debate amongst virologists go down?

> There is little debate in the matter.

I don’t agree with that as a way to run policy that affects real people living their lives.

Did anyone call this early on? Would’ve been nice to hear a free and open debate from the start—I don’t recall seeing one. There are costs to doing things everywhere on the planet “just in case.”

I like to keep business and charity separated. Mixing the two, in my opinion, simply adds a layer of indirection for the bastards to hide behind.

Besides, if you’re in a working environment where people throw around terms like “total comp” and have mortgages denominated in millions of dollars, the self-interest ship has kinda sailed.

They’re doing well now, so from their point of view why take on the risk? Service disruptions caused by strikes would hurt Amazon’s product offerings. Competitors may draw away their hardest workers, leaving Amazon with an uncompetitive, unfireable labor pool.

You can heat up some rocks with carbon to get silicon and CO2, then use the Czochralski method invented in 1915 to produce a single giant crystal by essentially dipping a stick into molten silicon and slowly pulling it out. Then you can slice up that big crystal into wafers.

There’s a cool photo on Wikipedia of somebody just growing a crystal: https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Silicon_grown_by_C...

There’s a bit of waste, but AFAIK it’s not too bad compared to other things.

CVST is a rare form of stroke.

Does 1 in 1000 women taking oral contraceptives having rare strokes every year sound right to you?

CVSTs happen in women taking oral contraceptives at a rate of 1 in 1000 per year?

The ruling party can’t even keep the factories north of Beijing from dumping pollution into the capital city’s air (and thus the lungs of the leadership and their families) for more than a few weeks at a time. I wouldn’t count on them here.

I read the paper. That is not a justification. If you are unwilling to entertain the idea that this is a low-quality report, go ahead. I can only contribute some prior experience on an Internet forum in an attempt to shed light on a politically fraught result from what appears to be a government scientist and some collaborators.

Given the discussion generated here and probably elsewhere, why do you believe the authors chose not to present a matched hospitalization control group alongside their control group? It’s pretty standard: that’s why they included a sentence saying they chose not to (albeit without any justification).

Why deviate?

My beef isn’t with the measurement, but with the presentation thereof. This problem you have recognized is so common that a framework was developed [1]. I don’t feel the work addresses all element of that framework satisfactorily. Others may disagree, and that’s okay.

[1]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strengthening_the_reporting_...

Essentially any contact with a hospital in that population produces eye-popping statistics. Having worked in this area, I’m of the opinion that the presentation of this work is misleading.