Not to everybody it wasn't. Some Japanese officers wanted to keep fighting even after two cities were wiped out. (Three if you count the firebombing of Tokyo, which you probably should...)
As proven earlier with Operation Ten-Go / The Battle of the East China Sea, many in the Japanese military preferred spiteful suicidal attacks to surrender, even when the hopelessness of their situation was abundantly clear.
Even after the second bomb, some Japan's military leadership wanted to keep fighting.
> The Kyūjō incident (宮城事件, Kyūjō Jiken) was an attempted military coup d'état in the Empire of Japan at the end of the Second World War. It happened on the night of 14–15 August 1945, just before the announcement of Japan's surrender to the Allies. The coup was attempted by the Staff Office of the Ministry of War of Japan and many from the Imperial Guard to stop the move to surrender.
> The officers murdered Lieutenant General Takeshi Mori of the First Imperial Guards Division and attempted to counterfeit an order to the effect of occupying the Tokyo Imperial Palace (Kyūjō). They attempted to place the Emperor under house arrest, using the 2nd Brigade Imperial Guard Infantry. They failed to persuade the Eastern District Army and the high command of the Imperial Japanese Army to move forward with the action. Due to their failure to convince the remaining army to oust the Imperial House of Japan, they performed ritual suicide. As a result, the communiqué of the intent for a Japanese surrender continued as planned.
That link doesn't really contradict that. It contradicts actually immune, since kids can obviously catch it. However most, particularly young children, don't show symptoms. And most of those that do show symptoms only have mild symptoms.
So yes, basically immune. Kids don't have much to fear themselves, the concern is that they'll infect adults who actually do have something to fear.
I see what you mean. I wouldn't classify that as "basically immune;" "less susceptible to deadly symptoms" maybe. Immunity should include a lack of ability to communicate the disease, which is not demonstrated at all.
... and I still wouldn't put money on children being immune enough to, say, safely open schools even if we discard the child->adult transmission risk. Over half the youngest demographic in the Georgia camp were infected, and children are dying from this disease, even if at a lower rate than adults (how much lower is a really important question).
The curve continues from there, peaking at 45,845 for 85 years or older. So yes, some kids do die, or at least they had covid when they died. But if this were all covid was, we certainly wouldn't have closed schools for the kids' sake over this. Clearly schools are closed due to the threat posed to teachers.
What does that look like relative to the infection count? That's the numbers I can't get easy access to; it may be the case we've simply successfully kept the disease away from places children frequent.
I'm hoping that's not the dominant factor in the numbers, because school re-opening will be real ugly if it is.
The Dutch CDC (locally known as RIVM) concluded that risk to young children is very low, and Dutch schools have been open since early May based on this understanding.
AFAICT if you just try to synthesize the existing research without prejudice, you'd have to conclude that the risk of young children dying from COVID-19 is very low.
Whether there is much risk of children -> adult transmission is more difficult to answer.
The risk to young children is low. But not having symptoms or being low death rate doesn't mean shit.
Kids require adults to take care of them. That means those kids who may have the infection could VERY easily spread it to higher risk people.
They aren't immune, they still get the virus, they can still spread it. That is not immune. They just don't show symptoms like older people. That's not an immunity.
On top of that we don't know the long term effects of this thing. While kids may not show symptoms what long term effects might this have on kids? There's still a huge risk there.
> it may be the case we've simply successfully kept the disease away from places children frequent.
That might be true to a degree, however the discrepancy is so huge, 2-3 orders of magnitude, that it should be pretty clear kids really do have much less to fear. I think some Olympic-level contortionism is needed to come to any other conclusion.
If the goal is to simply clone google or Facebook in Europe for reasons of politics then I agree - hobbling them would facilitate that.
If the goal is to actually produce something better, I think the opposite is true.
If you hobble them through protectionism, you create a vacuum which will be filled by a clone.
The clone will then have the same incentives to preserve the status quo as Google and Facebook are doing, just with different ownership.
The only way to replace Google and Facebook with something better is to identify and invest in something better - I.e. something that offers value that they can’t.
I do believe that government investment, can help with this.
I also believe that consumer rights laws etc can help.
> If the goal is to simply clone google or Facebook in Europe for reasons of politics then I agree - hobbling them would facilitate that. If the goal is to actually produce something better, I think the opposite is true.
I think the result would be inherently "actually" superior by virtue of being under the thumb of EU regulation to a degree that American corporations aren't. I'm not talking about technical superiority, which I don't care about. Having locally regulated technically inferior clones is preferable to the status quo.
> I also believe that consumer rights laws etc can help.
And such laws are best enforced against local companies, not foreign companies with foreign values. That's why it's a good idea for the EU to hobble, if not outright ban, American internet companies.
I like the middle-ground; safety razors. They're exceptionally cheap and idiot proof. Mine really doesn't clog like cartridge razors either. Cartridge razors seem like a scam in nearly all respects, although I concede loading them is probably safer for the elderly or generally those with dexterity problems.
Switched to a safety razor (Also called a Double Edge) after Mach3s had been out for awhile and they started jacking up the price. That must have been 2005ish and I've not really used anything else since. For quality of shave there is no comparison. Badger & Blade forum had a good process at the time where you started with a certain blade and worked up the sharpness ladder as your skin toughened up and you found the blade/razor combo that worked best for you. I'm a Personna Prep and Merkur 34C guy myself.
Shaving with a double edge instead of using a disposable is comparable to preparing your own dinner rather than going to McDonald's. It's a skill, it takes time, it's far for economical, there's a ritual to it, and it's enjoyable. It's also a uniquely positive masculine thing (and I think that that does matter) and one day I can pass the razor to my son or grandson.
Another nice middle-ground is a shavette, which is a disposable blade straight razor, like what barbers use. Although it definitely requires a lot more care/practice than a safety razor initially, you can get a really close shave once you get used to it.
Shavettes are extremely affordable, like $10 for the base. Unlike a "real" straight razor, shavettes never require sharpening since they just use standard disposable single-edge blades, or a double-edge blade split in half.
Safety razor requires more time to shave than cartridge razor because it requires more strokes. But I actually prefer it because usually I don’t shave every day. Cartridge razor clogs up in this case. When I shave every day I use either cartridge razor (Dorco) or wet electrical (Braun 9000). Both work greatly for daily shaving, fail for shaving every few days.
You can get a razor that has 3 blades and uses the standard double edge blades. You just snap them in half inside the wrapping and then load the 1.5 full size razor halves in.
I fill up a coffee can with the used blades (it takes years to do so) and have a place I can take them locally.
Edit, to add: terracycle also takes a lot of other recyclable items that you can seldom-if-ever recycle curbside, like guitar strings. Most big cities have music stores that have partnered with the program and you can drop all musical instrument strings there. Here are all of their programs for those interested: https://www.terracycle.com/en-US/brigades
Maybe it's your responsibility to not get scammed, but if you get scammed the fact remains that there was scamming going on, regardless of whether or not you were to blame.
This word "scam" gets thrown around so much these days that it's basically meaningless.
It's really unlikely that the failing startups described in TFA developed a food tech idea, pitched it to investors, rented space in a kitchen, etc just to scam people. It's far more likely that they were just clueless.
Be that as it may, I was addressing the curious "if it was my fault, then it wasn't a scam" logic.
If scamming isn't scamming when you to it to clueless investors, does that mean Elizabeth Holmes should be a free woman? The people she scammed didn't do any due diligence, but that doesn't make her scam any less a scam.
Elizabeth Holmes falsified data and made false representations. That is a scam. Buying a machine that turns out to not do what you need it to do is not a scam.
> Why in the world is excel the application of choice?
Because if it weren't for Excel, most Excel users would have to hire programmers. (And Gnumeric is very obscure, how many non-programmers have heard of it?)
