jtc331

I expect that’s true over a full tank of gas but not when e.g. only 20 miles are left.

Gas car range predictions are also regularly nonsensical. I thought this was well understood.

You didn’t stratify vaccination risk by age which immediately calls into question your comparative data. Indeed the myocarditis risk appears to be inversely correlated with age (exactly the opposite of the positive correlation of risk COVID itself has with age).

What if Twitter agreed with the motivation for the pressure? Shouldn’t the government not be pressuring people in pursuit of limiting free speech whether the current recipients of the pressure happen to be of the same political persuasion or not?

Otherwise what happens when the party in power changes?

Going down this technical path doesn’t aid your case: it destroys your case.

This is because the Constitution only authorizes Congress to make any laws in the first place, so only Congress could be guilty of making a law impacting speech. Taking all of the document in the narrow sense you’re taking it would mean the executive branch couldn’t limit speech either because they couldn’t do 99.9% of the things they do today in the first place.

I don’t think that link addresses the concern directly: it’s saying that the B cells can recognize multiple variant’s spike antigen, but the data shows that only ~10% of people vaccinated prior to natural infection developed N protein antibodies while almost all people who have natural infection first develop both S and N protein antibodies.

Even if that’s true (given how efficacy of the vaccines wanes rapidly I suspect the variants only hastened what would happen anyway), and it’s not obviously true given that Pfizer’s own clinical trials did not have transmission as a measurement or study endpoint, it’s still a huge problem for history to be so easily rewritten like “no one ever said this” when they clearly did say it.

It’s very popular on here to claim no one said it would prevent transmission, but given the CDC director among others said so in national news reporting (and this is trivially documented) it’s hard not to see this as selective memory (or just acceptance of the current claim as equivalent to history “We’ve always been at war with East Asia”).

Unless it prevents enough transmission to create herd immunity then any transmission prevention it accomplishes is effectively worthless unless the hospital system is overwhelmed and we need to slow down spread. This because slowing down spread but not actually bringing it to zero (not necessarily directly, but through herd immunity) still means everyone will be repeatedly exposed and anyone susceptible will eventually contract the virus anyway.

We need an endgame that makes sense.

Strict isolation and border closing can work if you catch it before community spread. The cases cited of this working (NZ, AU) are notably already geographically isolated and also were in the summer season when mass spread elsewhere began; it’s not at all obvious that strategy could have applied with the same effect in the northern hemisphere at the same time.

There is a potential paradox here because of original antigenic sin (from the paper name): basically the vaccines only present one antigen whereas in natural infection there are multiple antigens. Once the immune system learns one it generally doesn’t learn more on the next exposure (actual infection). Combine that with the antigen presented by the vaccine (spike protein) being the more frequently mutating antigen and you can have a scenario exactly like the GP describes.

Did you read the post? The naming is explicitly according to Instagram’s own published guidelines.

Also making it about picking your nose specifically when the research is really about “anything in the nose” is clickbait.

My understanding is that there is already court precedent that the government can’t do this (use private companies to do their censorship even if it’s not strictly guaranteed to happen).

I think “dry” and “damp” are two extremes. I feel warmer in 45% rH at 67°F in winter than at 30% rH same temperature, but the air doesn’t feel damp (OTOH 60% would start to approach feeling damp).

That being said, I think at normal conditioned air temperature ranges more humidity virtually always feels warmer. I’m not exactly sure where the cutoff is, but I’d guess below 60°F might be a decent guess?

What is the temperature outside? Humidity is measured relatively (to how much water air can hold at the current temperature), so even 100% humidity outside at a moderately chilly temperature outside can still translate into uncomfortably dry (e.g., less than 35%) humidity inside.

One more big one related to your first point: the demographic driving Teslas is hardly a random sampling of the population, which probably impacts driving behavior _but also_ implies the driving done (e.g., where) is probably quite different from the population as a whole.

Isn’t keeping a logical slot alive holding a snapshot?

MERGE does not have locking built in in the way that ON CONFLICT does, so it handles more cases and fewer cases all at the same time.

> I read it that the invite doesn get you differnces, the colonoscopy itsrlf does.

No, it doesn’t, because the two groups of people you’re comparing aren’t actually similar, and therefore any outcome difference can’t be tied to the intervention.

The difference in outcome between those two groups may merely be that the people who go through with the colonoscopy (not fun) are also willing to go through with their doctor’s recommendations on, say, diet restrictions (also not as fun!) so are healthier and have better outcomes.

Varicella spreads very easily, but 82% is wildly higher than the effectiveness of any of the COVID vaccines at preventing infection. So the public seeing it as wildly different is justified, and public health authorities have themselves to blame for communicating about this incorrectly and thus causing a dramatic loss of confidence in existing childhood vaccines.

Injecting mRNA into human cells is exactly the kind of brilliant hack you’d expect software engineers to come up with (and those same engineers would of course brush aside any concerns about unintended consequences in complex systems.)

I’m not the commenter you were trying to respond to, but I’m not sure that’s particularly responsive. Many people treated the flu shot as a different category of vaccine well before COVID. Many people who have their kids the standard vaccine program etc. made jokes about the flu vaccine for exactly the reasons you cite.

Surely you acknowledge there’s a difference between the expectations people have about the chickenpox vaccine (basically eradicated noticeable childhood chickenpox disease by giving all kids a live viral vaccine with an attenuated strain) and the flu vaccines.

It's worse than that: once we start refilling it we bring back all of the demand that releasing oil from the SPR kicked into the future.

It follows that if either 1.) demand drops or 2.) supply increases the refilling will create exactly the same problem in the future that releasing oil from the SPR was supposed to solve.

Infinite scroll is a terrible UI experience despite being popular; that’s why not everyone has adopted it.

> The fundamental difference with nuclear theory is that nukes don't self-assemble more nukes.

It's worse than that: nukes don't learn to become even more powerful nukes while being used.

> BSL-4 (+) labs

One of the issues is that effective safety in labs is virtually impossible in reality (lab leaks that are effectively non-material events are relatively high frequency even from the best labs).

No it matters a lot: which originally is correct is the primary determinant for which of opposite lessons to learn.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32735333

There’s a natural fork in the road here which is why this is so contentious. The best argument gain of function proponents have for their research (besides weaponization of course) is to create the next big thing in a lab first so that we can figure out how to neutralize it. The argument the anti-GoF advocates have is that creating the next big thing in a lab leads eventually/inevitably to at least one of them getting out.

The responses are effectively inherently opposite hence strong disagreement.

I think the better argument isn’t so much about status: it should have a higher prior because the institutions denying it as a possibility were the very ones funding the category of research that could plausibly result in such an incident.

This is the same kind of issue as why it’s important to separate the regulator from the regulated.

I don’t know why you’re being downvoted. The i3 styling was clearly distinguished from other BMWs and not in a good way.