That is... not what your link says at all. Rather the opposite:
> Fatal atherosclerotic events were more common in the control group (70 v. 48; p<0.05). However, total mortality was similar in the two groups: 178 controls v. 174 experimentals, demonstrating an excess of non-atherosclerotic deaths in the experimental group. This was accounted for by a greater incidence of fatal carcinomas in the experimental group [the vegetable oils group].
> How about... OP waits until there are actual results before posting?
It seems to me there's value in posting the details before the results are in:
- Helps prevent publication bias, by encouraging posting negative results
- Elicits comments from knowledgeable people who may be able to help
- Discourages doctoring the story after the results are in
> Even fewer can make a safe vaccine.
I don't know, the article, whitepaper, and comments seemed to make a pretty convincing case for the nasal vaccine attempt here to be not very dangerous - probably useless at worst. Do you have a more substantive counterargument?
Many of the negative comments here seem to have missed something important:
> Consider this a pre-registration. I intend to share my test results here.
How about, instead of totally dismissing this - in classic HN fashion - with "this can never work" or "this is magical thinking", we let the guy share his results?
If it works, that will be a massively important result. If not, it won't be surprising, but _at least he will have tried_. I for one think the expected value leans overwhelmingly in favor of at least one person actually trying.
You are misunderstanding. The bloom filter is only a preliminary check; if it indicates a revoked certificate, you then verify that it's a true positive the traditional way.
OP called out "skyscrapers". What counts as the precise cutoff for "tall buildings" is always going to be a matter of opinion.
But I live in Cambridge, MA and I can assure you Somerville would remain one of the densest cities in the union if every last building therein was lopped down to 3 stories by a giant lawnmower.
LA has an order of magnitude more population than is required for functioning public transit. But you're right they don't have the density.
The key is to realize the cars themselves killed density.
Parking lots, parking spaces, and extra lanes all conspire to push humans and human spaces further apart. This then makes walking less feasible, cars more required, and more space required to accommodate those cars in a feedback loop.
Taller buildings are not required for density, far from it. Look at Somerville, MA, where just about nothing is higher than 3 stories, yet they fit almost 20,000 people into a square mile -- and they like it. What they don't fit is 20,000 parking spaces, and that makes all the difference.
1. The appeal of the city is drastically reduced by coronavirus + remote work
2. Boston cost-of-living is really expensive
Put them together and moving to New Hampshire or Vermont starts to seem really attractive. Just compare Zillow for Manchester, NH vs, e.g., Somerville, MA.
Combine with 3. Most MA residents live in Greater Boston, and it's easy to see MA at #5.
I still remember the day I found out the "98.6 degrees" human body temperature was just an oversignificant conversion from "about 37 C, or maybe lower."
If I'm searching for a murderer in a town of 1000, it takes about 10 independent bits of evidence to get the right one. And when I charge someone, I must already have the vast majority of that evidence. To say "oh well we don't know that it wasn't Mr. or Mrs. Doe, let's bring them in" is itself a breach of the Does' rights. I'm ignoring 9 of the 10 bits of evidence!
Using a low-accuracy facial recognition system and a low-accountability lineup procedure to elevate some random man who did nothing wrong from presumed-innocent to 1-in-6 to prime suspect, without having the necessary amount of evidence, is committing the exact same error and is nearly as egregious as pulling a random civilian out of a hat and charging them.
If you're going to report other ratios as percentages, could you please be consistent? I initially erroneously read this as 0.01% deaths, which would be an absolutely enormous update, but 1% isn't surprising at all.
This is an incredibly easy problem to solve, relative to the current crisis: it only requires the federal government allocate enough money.
There is some price per mask at which the N95 respirator manufacturers that currently exist in the US would be willing to hire more people, buy more supplies, etc and start running 24/7. The only reason they aren't already is because nobody has agreed to pay for it.
Serious question: If the FBI and DHS are seizing PPE, where is it going? Why can't this hospital be a beneficiary of seized PPE, rather than an (almost) victim?
I held the same perspective until I worked for a manufacturing company. Many of that company's products, and indeed many products throughout the world, _would not exist_ without market segmentation. Selling the same hardware with different software often makes the company more money than only having one model. In some cases, that extra money is the difference between the product, or even the company, existing or not existing.
Higher education is merely one face of Cost Disease; we've seen similar trends in medical care, transportation (especially US subways), primary education...
Slate Star Codex [1] has a good overview, but doesn't provide a solution (instead only providing some good evidence that rejects some hypotheses).
As far as I can tell, the single biggest driver of Cost Disease is labor, but not salary: it takes more people to deliver the same services. This in turn is driven by market failure:
- The signaling component of higher education is zero-sum, and infinite loans and foreign capital mean not enough few consumers make college decisions based on cost
- US states have shown insufficient teeth in enforcing caps on construction budgets; overruns are expected meaning the bidding process cannot actually cause cost savings. And the days of private light rail companies competing against each other are long, long gone.
- Primary education's cost growth has been concentrated in areas that are not teaching - administration and bureaucracy. There is, of course, no meaningful cost competition at all in primary education.
All of these carry the caveat that we used to be able to get these things for cheaper, and e.g. primary education was never traded on a free market. So what happened? Was it inevitable, and merely took time?
If anyone has other ideas, please let me know. I would love to vote against cost disease and call any politician who will listen, but I don't fully understand the problem, let alone have a solution to offer.
One way to accomplish this would be to nationalize companies instead of bailing them out, right? If the taxpaying public bears the risks of your business, why shouldn't it get to share in any of the rewards?
I suspect the answer is something having to do with the overlap between the politically powerful and those with a great exposure to those risks and rewards.
> Crop yields increase 3-5×
> Farmers go from $600/acre to $14,000/acre revenue
5×$600 is $3000. Where did the extra 4.7x come from? The new-to-the-world info looks more like "making stuff up on the fly".