First time I'm hearing about this. Interesting! There was also the option for non-weapon volunteering services, which is what I did. If I knew about THW and that the time would count as well, then I might have done that instead.
I hope Netflix can repeat their success from their movie streaming service by growing, supporting and maybe buying some indie devs. There is certainly a space between the $10-15 games and the $60+ games that has been explored in multiple ways but that has never really taken off. Maybe a subscription service can establish that space.
It already exists in the form of gamepass. Owning an xbox and a gamepass subscription is a great experience. I was never into consoles even if I bought a few over the past couple of decades but having to pay good money for a game I'll play once didn't sit well and they ended up eating dust until eventually getting rid of them. Few months ago bought a an xbox series x and a gamepass subscription and I probably finished more titles than I had in the past 20 years. Subscription model for gaming works unless you need to have day one release titles.
Well, the "pyramid scheme" + "technobabble" is not totally worthless, if it enables the investment of "literally billions of dollars" in otherwise totally unproven technology paths, doesn't it? Finally there is one area where people are really investing money into computer science! A cause to celebrate in my book.
Except this bubble is a bit more insidious because you have actors like Tether that are most likely creating a lot of artificial liquidity/demand. If there is a sudden loss of faith and enough actors start rushing for the exits, it will look something more like a musical game of chairs of who is left holding the bag of worthless Mickey Mouse dollars, by my estimation.
Absolutely, that is my biggest worry. And it has no true backing, apart from these pump and dumps.
The single question people in favor of crypto can’t answer is the value creation. Now crypto is a natural evolution of certain monetary services and techniques, but at the core it literally does nothing of value. In fact, one might argue that that is its prime feature in its current state.
We can learn a lot from this about distributed, decentralized systems and their resilience. Caching as much and as local as possible, while accepting that the processes might have no network connectivity is key. This way each node, and whoever can reach this one node, can work independently for long stretches of time.
Decentralizing control over resources is a pretty interesting idea!
Sad choice of name though. If you're anti something, the biggest your ideas can reach is the size of what you are against.
One might, for instance, explore the "embedded systems" world and how one wants to distinguish oneself from it as well. I would say, embedded + everything that runs a kernel is a bigger scope already.
So, what do you want to stand for instead of against?
Suggestion: Talk to the people face-to-face, and have a demo ready. If you tell them you want to do something for kids, in the demo there are free cookies, and besides offering the space they don't have to do anything, then the chance is almost 100% that they jump in.
PS: Some more traditional organizations don't even read their emails at all. So don't take it personally.
If recovered people have longer term protection than vaccinated people (which is one possible interpretation of the headline's statement), would it make sense to first vaccinate someone and then expose them to the real virus, thereby generating the benefits with a much much lower risk or maybe even zero risk?
Wouldnt this just create the environment for a more resistant virus in a shorter period of time?
I did not calculated the chances yet but here is what my probability intuition is saying
Having 50% of population go through virus in one year creates a less fit environment for a more resistant mutation than having 50% of population being exposed to virus in 2-3 months.
Like more encounters over a shorter period of time is a good environment to allow survival of resistant mutations.
For me, this would be a point where I would fully rely on the experts for deciding how to implement that step and check if the plan is feasible. I don't recommend executing such ideas without syncing with authorities and experts.
That shouldn't stop us from brain storming, though, and allow experts to decide, if it's an interesting idea or stupid.
Well, if vaccination does not protect you for a lifetime, but only for a year or so, and a survived infection protects you for a lifetime, then getting infected while vaccinated should get you the +lifetime bonus.
And you will infect a lot fewer people, maybe zero, for the rest of your life, too. Should also help with avoiding future pandemics from this virus.
Who said after recovery you need vaccine? Probably you just need to share official documentation from your government and official health body with your family. Afaik, recovered and vaccinated are treated the same currently.
I asked about this. The response I got was that many people who got COVID had a mild case where the immune system did not kick in very strongly. That these are more likely to get a 2nd infection. The vaccine for them will give them coverage from a second infection.
They want everyone to get the vaccine so that people aren't missed who had a mild case.
Right or wrong, this is the reasoning being shared where I live.
> They want everyone to get the vaccine so that people aren't missed who had a mild case.
i feel like "mild case" (also) subtly refers to all of the folks who said "oh, yeah, i had a cold in december 2019, that was probably covid. i've had it. no big deal."
>"But the persistence of antibody production, whether elicited by vaccination or infection, does not ensure long-lasting immunity to COVID-19. The ability of some emerging SARS-CoV-2 variants to blunt the protective effects of antibodies means that additional immunizations may be needed to restore levels, says Ellebedy. “My presumption is we will need a booster.”
The article talks about how the experts on this field "presume" we'll need boosters to get antibody levels high enough to combat the worse mutated variants, and of course, it could be a bit of an arms race between it mutating variants that are better against our antibodies, and us boosting our antibodies with vaccines to trigger responses and keep blood levels high.
The broadly-accepted imperative requirement is "vaccinated", as in "do not enter without a mask/etc unless you have been fully vaccinated". There is never a reference to "inoculated" (to wit vaccinated or had Covid and recovered).
Furthermore, there may not be "official documentation from your gov't and official health body". I was tested & 'treated', but my wife had exactly the same symptoms & recovery without bothering with doctors (seriously, it was really mild), so there is no documentation and no apparent process to procure such documentation.
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." Seems that, to most people, Covid & vaccines are magic: the disease is perceived little differently from evil spirits (sparing some and slaying others, with nothing corporeal to perceive & avoid), and the vaccine is a tangible talisman mysteriously able to ward off such spirits (by a mere prick from a costumed wizard wielding magic potions). This leaves most people, unable to really grasp the objective mechanism of vaccination (being a simulation of actual infection, to teach the body to fight it off), with the only objectively perceivable act they can grasp in the issue: vaccine injection. Hence many dismiss the near-spiritual notion of "I contracted it, survived, and am now immune - without intervention by wizards". Thus, to present it a bit over-the-top, recovered and vaccinated are not treated the same by those not professionally involved in medicine.
> The broadly-accepted imperative requirement is "vaccinated", as in "do not enter without a mask/etc unless you have been fully vaccinated". There is never a reference to "inoculated" (to wit vaccinated or had Covid and recovered).
As can be concluded from my post: Where I live vaccinated and recovered are treated the same, at least for now.
> Furthermore, there may not be "official documentation from your gov't and official health body".
Where I live there are laws what is permitted in super markets, restaurants, bars etc. And there are recommendations from the official health body that is responsible for the Covid topic. Often they overlap, sometimes they don't. But I think currently both agree on the vaccinated vs recovered point.
All that is said just to sync up on facts. I'm not trying to convince anybody of changing their interpretation or opinion.
What conclusions would you draw from that if you want to focus more?