seemslegit

It's not even partially ready, but that's not the point - it was more credibly possible when it was acquired by Google then it was when it was initially funded by the public.

You can say that about YC or any other incubator and yet they seem keen on maintaining their equity.

Neither is what being proposed nor is a reasonable reading of the above, if Google hires out an entire group and its associated work then the university and federal research funding agencies should maintain equity in its results, many universities have programs for exactly this kind of thing.

Also afaik John Martinis maintained a paid and tenured position at UCSB during his work at Google.

And that's great, but nowhere does it say that this something should end up as the property of a corporation who will then charge the public for its use.

That the public maintains its share in the upside ? For example by having Google put in money back into the NSF budget

> Yes, that's right. I was a professor at the University of California, Santa Barbara, and we had government funding and were doing quite well. Google got interested and my group and I came over to work at Google, basically because we both wanted to build a useful quantum computer.

So basically US taxpayers were involuntary seed investors who funded the highest initial risk to achieve validation and proceeded to be wiped out at Round A by Google.

> One message was clear to the researcher: when you’re listening, Xiaomi is listening, too.

So does one or more of: Google, Facebook, Samsung, Apple, Amazon

As opposed to ?

You might as well be asking spammers and 419 scammers to up their spelling and grammar so that more upstanding citizens could take advantage of those lucrative opportunities

Not just Scientology, it's Cults 101

A pyramid scheme is right, the obscurity is there to distract the people susceptible to this kind of thing from this particular fact.

Alternatively - Sweden's per-capita covid19 mortality rates are about 125% those of the US, and bellow those of UK,France,Italy,Spain,Netherlands,Belgium all of which are locked down.

Is T4 templating still a thing with C# ? - this would have been useful with it a decade or so ago to avoid painful non-deterministic builds.

Making ? Surely you meant raising.

Yes there is. Not having effective options against a new virus is the null hypothesis. So by all means do whatever research has promising leads but don't lower burden of proof for accepting something as clinically effective.

Did she consider it might be due to a selection effect of people who arrive to the hospital in mild rather than severe stages of the disease ?

Yes, you should not look at any result in an emergency you wouldn't otherwise - in fact you should probably only increase scrutiny given how much incentive there is to merely get a headline with your drug mentioned as a potential covid19 cure.

The OP is basically arguing for a "something must be done and this is something" reasoning.

Didn't say it doesn't make sense to do more testing, but relaxing your reasoning standard in emergencies is a bad idea.

It means the study group was big enough to rule out benefit for those who began treatment in severe stage but not big enough to establish benefits for those who began treatment in a mild stage, which in turn indicates an upper bound to such possible benefit.

Without commenting on this particular event, the passive voice is the correct voice to use in a sentence, the intent and purpose of which is to describe the outcomes of an event rather than its causes.

Except this is an encyclopedic summary of a conflict - not a speech. The entry also tells you exactly how many people of each category were killed by each side, nitpicking on the passive voice here is idiotic.

What single incident ?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Aqsa_Intifada says it lasted "4 years, 4 months, 1 week and 4 days"

It also has the Wikipedia standard conflict "Casualties and losses" tally.

How would you have it phrased ?

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties "An estimated total of 70–85 million people perished"

Well the existence of a bypass for that is what is being considered here, such a bypass would constitute a backdoor contrary to Apple's security/privacy posturing.

You can because (presumably) the backup is encrypted with a key that is derived from your iThing credentials not with the phone hardware encryption key which is derived among other things from the screen lock passcode.

But if you lose the passcode to your screen-locked or unpowered device any way of getting data (that has not been backed up) out of it, while it's locked or turned off implies a security flaw even if done via a firmware signed by Apple.

Not the point, If installing such a software on a locked device is technically feasible that's a pretty glaring hole in the entire security approach, essentially making Apple a trusted party to your phone data with the ability to create other such parties.

Can you do an OS upgrade on a locked device without unlocking it first ? If so that is terrible regardless of whether the OS partition is encrypted or not.

It also doesn't really matter whether the compromise is a direct key extraction or just defeating the anti-bruteforce protections, the root flaw here is with the phone accepting new privileged software while locked and still retaining its state.

Well if only FBI knew about recovery mode...

I'm talking about having device data preserved and made accessible, while the device is screen-locked, without having any credentials or the passcode - pick all three.

I'm talking about the time Apple was asked to provide an alternative firmware to unlock the iPhone of the San Bernardino shooter, which suggests that at least Apple itself can put a new firmware on a locked device without having it wiped.

No. You would still need a signed modified firmware that would make use of the passcode-derived key from the original device, but the point is that an iPhone can accept a new firmware while locked which shouldn't be the case if Apple was serious about non-compromised security.