I don't think you understand how science works. One study does not prove or disprove a hypothesis, especially on a highly politicized topic. Also, I made a general statement about parasitics being effective against covid because of similar mechanisms of action. I did not make a distinction on early disease very late-stage disease, including hospitalization, so I don't understand why you think that study disproves anything I said about general effectiveness.
Again, one study does not prove or disprove a hypothesis, but cherry-picking one study as evidence that my argument is wrong is certainly not how science works. However, it is interesting that hydroxychloroquine has been shown to work better in non-hospitalized or pre-hospitalized patients, which makes sense given covid's mechanism of action. The anti-parasitics essentially protect the red blood cells from infection, so I wouldn't be surprised if that is the reason why they may work better in non-hospitalized patients.
But...I don't have time to do a meta-analysis for people that aren't open to finding the truth, regardless of what political agenda the truth may support or not support.
Good luck to everyone so invested in proving or disproving each other's arguments. I've wasted enough time - now back to my work.
Studies have shown that COVID-19 has similar mechanisms of action as parasitic infections that target red blood cells. That's why Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine (drugs for parasitic diseases, such as malaria, a red-blood cell parasite) have shown success in clinical trials and in vitro studies. That's also why sweet wormwood (Artemisia annua, plant species used for malaria, and the plant that Artemisinin, winner of the nobel peace prize in 2015 is derived from) has been found in laboratory settings to be effective against COVID-19. And why alkoloids from cryptolepis (another anti-malarial herb) are also being researched by various countries and researchers. Vaccines and potential treatments are not mutually exclusive. If you have the biological background like I do then looking up the studies should be a piece of cake. Downvote if you like. Since this is such a polarized topic, I really don't want to spend the energy to share all the studies if people don't have an open mind. But do your own research, the studies are there.
This reminds me of something that would be included in a JS engineering interview. I find questions like this to be ridiculous. Knowing the answer to a question about this 'gotcha' would be a pretty terrible signal about future engineering performance. I'll focus on writing good software and solving complex problems, thanks.
After reading this article, I feel slight annoyance. But maybe that is just me.
This post is on point. I spent a good amount of time working on multiple NativeScript apps (NS with Angular and NS with Vue) and can attest that the documentation is not good enough and that there are serious bugs that are pointed out and never fixed or addressed.
I will say that open-source is a good thing to do and that they are not solving an easy problem - developing native mobile apps with multiple JS frameworks like Angular and Vue. Good on them for the effort. On top of that, there is definitely a market need for an Angular / Vue / JS to native app library for people that don't want to use React-Native for whatever reason.
However, with that said...marketing their software as production ready, easy-to-use, and working out of the box while it being the exact opposite is harmful to the companies and developers that sink serious time and effort into building with NS. There needs to be more awareness like this blog post about how people should stay away from NS because of the issues mentioned. That is not being negative - it is being ethical and doing the right thing for the companies and developers that would end up having broken apps and serious sunken costs into platform that doesn't live up to what it says it does.
I have many Github issues that were acknowledged as bugs but never addressed or fixed. I even offered a workaround that people are probably still using to this day because they never fixed certain bugs and docs. I haven't really interacted with the NS people too much besides on a few issues that weren't answered, so I can't comment on their attitude, but I can attest that everything else the OP is saying is true about NS not being a good solution.
NS isn't soo terrible where nothing ever works. I believe the apps I worked on are still running in production. But, I'll put it this way - everyone learned from the experience that using NS is definitely not a good idea to use for developing mobile apps.
If you want to make valid comparisons, compare the energy usage of Bitcoin (and other blockchain-based solutions) to the energy usage of the current fiat system (with all its banks and other financial services companies). Plus, it is a fact that the majority of energy used to mine Bitcoin is renewable.
Let's be honest. It is obvious that the majority of HN users are anti-Bitcoin for a few reasons:
1) They see early adopters profiting mightily and have a zero-sum, envious mindset.
2) Silicon Valley promotes centralization. People have invested their careers in organizations that promote the centralization of the internet and technology, and Bitcoin is a threat to that.
3) Silicon Valley, once teeming with innovation because of diversity of though, is now completely monolithic in thought. The powers-that-be (i.e. Bill Gates, among others) are anti-Bitcoin, as it threatens their centralized power, and so Bitcoin has become out of fashion in Silicon Valley.
4) Politics. Bitcoin is decentralized and empowers those that privately and independently own it and transact with it. This is generally a libertarian concept. Silicon Valley, being very politically on the left, realizes that the independence that Bitcoin brings goes against their ethos of governmental and bureaucratic control. You cannot "cancel" or prevent someone you don't like from using the Bitcoin network - even if you disagree with them.
HN used to be great, in my opinion, and I hope things improve. My comments are sincere.
Now, prepare for my comment to get censored by a flood of downvotes in 1, 2, 3...
I never characterized the Fed as an "evil puppet master" - that is an exaggeration. However, the Fed is certainly responsible for wealth inequality. It's a simple concept that is 100% backed by the financial and socioeconomic data:
- Rich people (small percent of population, i.e. "the 1%") own the vast majority of assets
- Fed is pumping massive amount of money into financial markets, which pumps up asset prices artificially
- Cost of living sky-rockets since the rich use their increased net worth to buy more assets, causing housing prices and other assets to skyrocket
- Purchasing power of the dollar to buy assets is severely decreased. Wages are stagnant but assets have skyrocketed. This causes feedback loops where the poor / middle-class don't have money to buy assets and the rich keep getting more money to buy more assets, hence runaway wealth inequality and social unrest.
No reason to have so much contempt against this argument. It's based on the evidence.
Business cycles and asset inflation are different. Business cycles are natural to capital markets, asset inflation is caused by massive artificial injections of money (a la quantitative easing).
I didn't make an argument about education. I made a comment referencing mass financial and economic illiteracy in America.
An economic theory is not right or wrong, good or bad, or otherwise based what the "educated, mainstream experts" believe. The history of human knowledge is essentially a history of paradigms (sometimes temporarily useful) being proven completely wrong, with some non-mainstream ideas being proven right. QE and mainstream economics, in my opinion, will turn out the same way, and end up causing the destruction of arguably the wealthiest nation in human history.
It's only a "burn" if you actually think it's a legit argument. I was just pointing out that it is not.
"One of the great commandments of science is, "Mistrust arguments from authority." ... Too many such arguments have proved too painfully wrong. Authorities must prove their contentions like everybody else." - Carl Sagan
"Mainstream actually educated economists are right, not people hyperventilating about money printing."
The thesis of your post is literally a fallacious argument - the argument from authority. The textbook definition.
Yes, the "experts" are always right, like the experts that ran LTCM, the hedge fund run by rocket scientists that crashed the economy (until being bailed out by the Fed) /s
I would go on with more examples of fallacious "argument from authority" logic gone wrong, but I don't have the time.
The article that this thread is based off of is literally the opposite take from my original post. The article claims that America's 1% is responsible for the wealth inequality. That is why I posted my comment. My opinion, and the "majority" opinion according to you, is that wealth inequality is because of Fed policies, not the 1% boogey-man.
The people protesting are not protesting the Fed. No institution (i.e. media, grassroots, journalists) criticizes the Fed - it's always the 1%.
But, I guess you wouldn't understand, since you make baseless assumptions about internet strangers. How would you know my net worth - do you think there aren't billionaires that share my "mainstream" opinion?
Your fallacious logic and personal attacks against me do not diminish my argument. In fact, since you cannot attack the substance of my argument, you have already admitted defeat.
This is one of the worst takes I've read in awhile.
First off, there is no general consensus about the exact cause of the Great Depression and the cause of the recovery. If you're going to make an attempt at a history lesson, at least get it right. We know that the stock market crash and banking panics played a large role in the contraction of economic activity, but there is absolutely no general consensus for the exact causes. Your theory, that was portrayed as a fact, is solely an opinion that is disputed by many economists and historians. Academics are split as to the exact cause of the great depression and stopping deflation made possible by the gold standard is not an accepted fact in any economics or history debate. [1]
Secondly, the Fed providing liquidity is not "stabilizing the price of the USD", as you say. Printing money out of thin air at extreme rates (22% of all dollars were printed in 2020) is massively devaluing the USD and is borrowing against the future of the country, thus ultimately destabilizing the USD. Just like how many things that feel good in the short term are unhealthy for us, providing artificial short term liquidity that ends up destabilizing society long-term is not healthy or intelligent. As we add trillions of dollars of debt to the US balance sheet, we will soon get to a point where the vast majority of federal expenditure will be on interest payments (it is currently less than 10% but increasing exponentially). At that point, the US will either be forced to hike taxes to ridiculous levels to pay down the debt, or will essentially be bankrupted, and the country's assets will be taken over and dissolved to pay back its lenders by some supranational organization.
The only thing you said with a hint of truth was that the Fed is like an engine that serves to move a train. However, the train is off the tracks, not moving the economy forward. The fed is actively destroying the economy by devaluing the USD and destroying the future of this country. Look around you - companies have already started hedging against the dollar and moving into anything that won't surely be devalued at dangerous levels like the USD in the next decade (i.e. Bitcoin). The Fed is being disrupted, similarly to how Amazon disrupted Barnes and Noble, Netflix disrupted BlockBuster, Uber disrupted Taxis, AirBnB disrupted hotels, and so on. The Fed is NOT a not a net positive on society and people are waking up to it. Hence crypto (deflationary in nature) being the highest returning asset in the last decade, appreciating at 200% each year against the dollar, which people are flocking to. The economy will surely be destructured, but it will be away from centralization and the Fed, because it only serves to enrich the monied interests, while putting on a facade that it exists to 'lower unemployment' and 'stabilize the USD'.
Exactly. Bankruptcy and insolvency is an immune response to financial illness in markets. However, instead of removing cancerous growths, we bail them out and thus they metastasize and become much larger and more lethal. This inevitably leads to the death of the host.
Correction: The Fed's policies have taken $50T of wealth from the Bottom 90%.
When you bail out irresponsibly over-leveraged and nearly bankrupted banks and corporations, and pay for those bailouts with tax-payer money, you steal from the poor and give to the rich.
Most importantly, when the Fed decides to print money ad nauseam, they create massive asset inflation, which steals from the poor and gives to the rich. This is because those dollars that are printed go directly into bonds, equities, and assets that only a small amount of the population owns a significant amount of. When money is "printed" the Fed actually injects money into financial markets through buying assets. This asset inflation caused by money printing gives more money to the rich to buy more assets, thus driving up the prices of financial products, real estate, and all other valued assets in society. Thus, cost of living skyrockets, but only the rich are actually increasing their net worth (which is increasing exponentially). All of this happens while minimum wage, and most wages, are stagnant.
Wealth inequality and social unrest in America is DIRECTLY related to corrupt and/or incompetent (you choose) Fed policies. It amazes me why most people do not grasp this. I think it is lack of education.
"Emotional well-being also rises with log income, but there is no further progress beyond an annual income of ~$75,000"
"We conclude that high income buys life satisfaction but not happiness, and that low income is associated both with low life evaluation and low emotional well-being."
The study states that emotional well-being does not rise with income over 75k. The study also concludes that high income is not correlated to happiness.