WIV was studying bat-vaccine viruses: release the vaccine in a population and let infection do the rest.
Wuhan variant, shows a mortality of around 10% (all the miners died, and healthy doctor, who was silenced then martyred, also died).
Branch after Wuhan quarantines in Italy was mixed S and L variant. Mortality of around 1% after settling. Xi-Omicron variant now seems around 0.1%.
Would a country with a more advanced biodefense release such a counter virus if it had the option? Perhaps if the damage to the economy and international relations became too grave.
Then again, Spanish Flu also lasted 3 years and ended with an endemic virus. Maybe we just waited for nature to engineer this, while trying to speed up opening up for the economy, having young people vaccinate to protect the rich and elderly, and a few years worth of mRNA data volunteered/mandated by the public.
If torture, then you should defend that the UK is torturing prisoners. I thought that was going to be a hard sell, but then I checked the most recent thing that Nils wrote and it seems to be selling exactly that:
> #Assange’s stroke is no surprise.
> As we warned after examining him, unless relieved of the constant pressure of isolation, arbitrariness & persecution, his health would enter a downward spiral endangering his life.
> #UK is literally torturing him to death.
Prisoners face undue pressure of isolation making strokes unsurprising? Not buying it. Instead, accepting that Assange was a journalist, who was acting in a different manner than usual journalists, and now up to the courts to decide if this manner was against their laws or not. Activism as a motive may actually be a better defense, but not a defense lawyer.
Heh. Was not Watergate itself about breaking in and stealing documents?
According to US, Assange went too far by playing this kid, asking him to use his privilege to scour the network for encrypted files and hand these over. How could Manning even had known of the contents? Or that Wikileaks was safe to trust for protecting its sources and avoiding state-actor influence?
At best that was cyberpunk activism, not journalism.
Level 0 thinking, you do not even know the value of your cards. Such sophistry could only work on similar-leveled people. So if I engage, I'd be bluffing, and this is not a good idea to do with players who are basically no better or worse than random search.
Find all facts and circumstantial evidence for and against lab-leak and zoonosis. Then form your own opinion. That's my claim, and only that. That may even be an opinion worth engaging with, for as long as the "we still" in your world-view includes a couple of thousand Chinese internet trolls, and discredited conflicted scientists who despite this still seem to make it to the Lancet and NYT.
How can you have integrity of the justice system if you don't have integrity of facts?
What you call torture, is the isolation and lack-of-stimulus we put all prisoners through. This treatment is not specific to harass Assange, but Assange and his team wants special treatment specific to Assange.
Assange is different in many ways. A journalist normally does not convince a suicidal army recruit in Iraq to search the local network for more encrypted files he and his team can crack themselves. The only country to reward such behavior with a medal would maybe be Russia.
To what? People discussing and voting for their favorite candidate? Before it got censored as fake news, parts of social media were pretty damn correct on the pandemic and its origins. All of regular media followed the narrative, some afraid of the truth, because Trump may have ran with it.
> How can you have election integrity if you don't have integrity of facts?
This is about integrity/virtue of opinion. Conflate facts with opinions or political views and you lose right to talk facts. People voting in an authoritarian do not believe they are voting in an authoritarian, but an opposing voice to the evil socialist. It is poignant to defend democracy and at the same time complain of the rise of authoritarianism brought about by democracy.
In so many ways, you are then saying people are voting on the wrong people, because they do not read your newspapers, but their Facebook timelines.
Perhaps OSS has become too sophisticated and professional-standard for its own good, while still being created and maintained by amateurs.
I have an analytics package which is apparently being evaluated by the military of a large country. Even if secure code, now the maintainers themselves are under attack.
For I am definitely a weaker link than a soldier or agent or gov department. Did not expect such usage when creating this project. If said government had seen how this was developed and tested, they would probably physically destroy the machines it is installed on.
Consultants sometimes dislike NDA, because as a consultant, you are already expected not to disclose. It is strongly implied, like patient-confidentiality. Airing dirty laundry or competitive advantage as someone visiting many companies a year, is like a doctor amputating the wrong leg. You do this once, then you are out of a job and reputation.
Risk is on your end, so you pay for it. A 10k contract becomes a 12k contract. You clarify your risks, your mitigation method (NDA), and that the extra money is for the legal liability the consultant takes on.
If this becomes a cultural thing, part of OSS, then more employees inside big companies will start to advocate for funding the OSS they rely on. Companies found to be profiting of OSS, while keeping a closed wall, complaining, but not contributing patches or funding, will lose market mind share, and a percentage of the best developers.
Seems doable, but still hard without centralized control and PR.
I feel this is a problem of companies being cheapskates, not of OSS maintainers. So do not make it their problem. I do not make OSS for companies, but for enthusiasts, contributing to building cool stuff, students and researchers.
Don't really want a commercialization of OSS maintainers. Does not seem in the spirit of OSS, but a convoluted way to contract a single dev to work on your stack. If you are this big company, ping your developer advocate, set aside a budget, and have them go through your dependancies and reward accordingly.
What bothers me way more, is when companies take OSS and then do not adhere to the license. Not as in forgetting to attribute you, but publishing a patent based on your code and approaches. That's easy enough to kill your motivation if you are doing it for free in the first place.
If money becomes an incentive for OSS maintainers, then they will start replying to the emails they constantly get, to buy their extension or use their CDN. Your company bet the house on a poor Polish CS student for logging or useragent parsing? Your, and only your, problem. OSS keeps on working.
I do not think it is an advertisement. The author studied CS at MIT. Then was a journalist based in Moscow. Now works for the Wall Street Journals on scoops involving DARPA.
But I do think it is artificially placed. Probably an institutional propaganda push for Pyth (or at least, that's what the supporters say it could become). Perhaps these found the right lobbyists or pockets.
The word "cartel" is too negative, especially when discussing political and social factors. The narrative seems written, before their findings. Or at least, it could well have.
For a computer science analogy: It is a paper with the finding that most successful computer languages are created at prestigious institutes. An obvious -not a bad - finding. Not like you could give the motivation, skills, expertise, resources, and time to a small new institute, and expect these to come up with a new language which the community will adopt.
Yes, if you write and publish a good data set, and it gets adopted by the community, then you gain lots of citations. This reward is known, and therefore some researchers expend the effort of gathering and curating all this data.
It is not a "vehicle for inequality in science". Benchmarks in ML are a way to create an equal playing field for all, and allows one to compare results. Picking a non-standard new benchmark to evaluate your algorithm is bad practice. And benchmarks are the true meritocracy. Beat the benchmark, and you too can publish. No matter the PR or extra resources from big labs. It is test evaluation that counts, and this makes it fair. Other fields may have authorities writing papers without even an evaluation. That's not a good position for a field to be in.
> The prima facie scientific validity granted by SOTA benchmarking is generically confounded with the social credibility researchers obtain by showing they can compete on a widely recognized dataset
Here, authors pretend social credibility of researchers has any sway. There is no social credibility for a Master's student in Bangladesh, but when they show they can compete, then they can join and publish. Wonderful!
Where the authors use the long history of train-test splits, to pose the cons have outweighed the benefits, they should reason more and provide more data to actually show this and get the field to get along. Ironically, people take more note of this very paper, due to the institution affiliation of the authors. I do too. If they had a benchmark, I would have first looked at that.
> Given the observed high concentration of research on a small number of benchmark datasets, we believe diversifying forms of evaluation is especially important to avoid overfitting to existing datasets and misrepresenting progress in the field.
I believe these authors find diversity important. But for overfitting, these should look at actual (meta-) studies and data. This seems conflicting. For instance:
> A Meta-Analysis of Overfitting in Machine Learning (2019)
> We conduct the first large meta-analysis of overfitting due to test set reuse in the machine learning community. Our analysis is based on over one hundred machine learning competitions hosted on the Kaggle platform over the course of several years. In each competition, numerous practitioners repeatedly evaluated their progress against a holdout set that forms the basis of a public ranking available throughout the competition. Performance on a separate test set used only once determined the final ranking. By systematically comparing the public ranking with the final ranking, we assess how much participants adapted to the holdout set over the course of a competition. Our study shows, somewhat surprisingly, little evidence of substantial overfitting. These findings speak to the robustness of the holdout method across different data domains, loss functions, model classes, and human analysts.
Wuhan variant, shows a mortality of around 10% (all the miners died, and healthy doctor, who was silenced then martyred, also died).
Branch after Wuhan quarantines in Italy was mixed S and L variant. Mortality of around 1% after settling. Xi-Omicron variant now seems around 0.1%.
Would a country with a more advanced biodefense release such a counter virus if it had the option? Perhaps if the damage to the economy and international relations became too grave.
Then again, Spanish Flu also lasted 3 years and ended with an endemic virus. Maybe we just waited for nature to engineer this, while trying to speed up opening up for the economy, having young people vaccinate to protect the rich and elderly, and a few years worth of mRNA data volunteered/mandated by the public.