651 karma · joined June 10, 2017
I'm also making sure to be stocked in non perishable food, rice, etc.
They can require you to tell them where the body is if you “encrypted” its location (i.e. buried it somewhere)
There are different categories of data. Data which refers to the the chain itself must be immutable, I agree. But data that represents the content of articles posted there does not.
> The concept is bad because you don't want that property; you want a mutable data store with privileged and unprivileged access.
You do want that property for some categories of data. You don't want unaccountability in who can update articles and what changes they can make, but you do want the articles to be changeable.
What this provides is to prevent an organization from being corruptable. A government or powerful corporate entity could pressure wikipedia into changing an article to suit their purposes, and wikipedia could stone wall and refuse to comment on any changes they made for that purpose.
If it was on a blockchain, and an editor was pressured into making such a change, the community would be able to directly vote that editor out and get the original content restored.
Fine, make it instant. People can compare the old data with the new, and notice, and vote out an editor who is abusing their power.
When it comes time to remove the offending data, the software that verifies the blockchain would accept in lieu of the actual data, a set of signatures of the elected editors. All nodes would replace the block with banned data with the replaced one.
It really isn't that hard.
It's software. A blockchain can be programmed to accommodate your use case. It can also accommodate preventing bias all powerful editors from destroying or manipulating information without the approval of the community, which wikipedia does not.
And that says nothing for why the data matches up exactly to an ideal model and furthermore that model (quadratic) isn't correct for the spread of viruses (which is exponential).
If you look at data from outside of China, you can see a regular jagged line full of noise which you would expect for real data. The data from China stands out like a mannequin in a lineup.
The further kicker is that the model it aligns to is quadratic where an actual virus spread is exponential. So, the Chinese are not only making up numbers and following an ideal model exactly but can't even figure out to use a valid ideal model to generate those fake numbers from.
See more here:
On the other side of the coin, independent reporters don't get much traction / notoriety unless they kneel to sensationalism.
So there isn't any practical way to do unbiased reporting and still get your voice heard.
Ok so - definitely, the death count is too low. We all agree there. But before you freak out, there's a bright spot. We CAN also put an upper bound with a fair amount of certainty on the general death rate. How? Because there have been enough cases reported globally already, and enough data from the patients OUTSIDE of China, that we can tell the death rate is NOT anywhere near 10% with a strong degree of certainty (many patients have recovered, and are just awaiting the viral test all-clear before they can be discharged. Most other patients are in stable and recovering condition).
So we don't know, from the China data, whether the fatality rate is 0.5% or 1% or 2% or 3%... but we can be FAIRLY sure it's not 5% and definitely not above that. Simply because otherwise we'd already see the mortality in International cases, and that's outside of Chinese control.
Of course, this assumes access to a hospital, so if they get overwhelmed, I would expect the death rate to be higher, but unsure of how much.
What also leads me to believe this may be the case is that there was (according to the article) experiments on bats being run, and in China, people often find random animals, in drainage ditches, etc., and then go on to sell them for meat. It's possible that the bats they were working on were improperly disposed of, and then picked up and sold at the wet market.
If you actually meant the World Health Organization, you'd have to interpret that as "World Health Organization did". This is obvious incorrect, and rather should be "The World Health Organization did". So there is no way for your daughter to have interpreted what you said as talking about the World Health Organization, whether initialism or acronym.
> Sorry if I took you away from fact checking open mic night. :-D
No, I wasn't distracted at all. Thanks for the concern, though.
Calling my argument "poorly thought-out" is rather rich when you haven't thought about the ramifications of a the success of a thin-client model, and the bust of the PC market.