Mathematics (and others, e.g. teoretical computer science does it for journals or you are at least expected to do so as a reviewer - most ML does not get into journals and wheather it is TCS can also be discussed) check the proofs which is more or less the equivalent.
From the summary: The U.S. has
It seems odd to use G7 here, since so many of them blew it (as compared to countries outside G7):
Italy got hard hit in the beginning due to being one of the first hit spots - this aint really their fault, but they are worse off than most others due to it.
France are unusually much in favor of homeotherapy and against vacs. They have done okish so far, but I fear they will get worse now.
UK has Boris, basically similar to Trump. Basically, everything is done a bit too late.
US had Trump as the summary highlights (and are unusually much against vacs, like France, but for typically more religious reasons).
Canada, Germany and Japan did more or less ok.
Like, the average of other devolped countries are much better than this.
Clearly he would fit badly here:
Likely to comment without first reading the article!
Likely to complain how things aint as good as they used to be!
At times acts like he is an expert at things he knows nothing of!
Spends far too much time on here or other social media while at work!
Also, goes on long rants that ain't always closely related to the topic at hand!
What would we do if such people came here?
Naturally not! This is Slashdot: the amount you have to read depends on how long you have been here. I would have expected you to have graduated to reading at most the title by now...
Even closer: In Chrysalis, the main character is an ant that mutates crystals/diamonds into his exoskeleton...
Chrysalis is by RinoZ and can be read for free: https://www.royalroad.com/fict...
Margrethe Vestager is formally a Executive Vice President of the European Commission for A Europe Fit for the Digital Age. She used to be European Commissioner for Competition - basically, if there were a big court case in relation to competition in the last many years in EU she was likely behind it. My understanding is that her new job is a promotion from her old, but that she mostly does similar work and got promoted due to being popular in Europe (Trump not liking her helped).
But, clearly, it IS back to normal by now! Otherwise, Trump would not go golf so much. That would be irresponsible!
It is (currently) post in China, and since single's day is mainly chiense, that does seem to be the relevant part. I guess you could argue that it could come back, but currently it is not a big problem in China... Note that they, as I understand it, did a style of lockdown that would be impossible here (i.e. locked people in their homes and brought them food through the window). I am not advocating that style of lockdown, but it does sound like it would be effective.
While this is likely meant as a joke, I still wanted to give the classic XKCD reponse: https://xkcd.com/1378/
True, but you just need someone to forget it once and it will somewhat painful to correct. Changing the names is likely the best option.
The difference seems to be that they want to get paid for peer review, and maybe drop anonymity as well. I think both sounds reasonable, but you do not really need to give a new name for it and others have been talking about it for awhile - for some wierd reason, the journals do not like the idea much (the paid peer review part). Some part of it also sounds like typical science, i.e. challenge dominant assumptions IS science as usual.
Your article states that 4/33 or roughly 12% shows signs of the disease.
Counter point: people dying today got infected weeks ago. This matters much more because of how fast this virus grows.
Deaths double due to corona virus in the US every 4 days or so. I am going to make the simplifying assumption that infections doubles at the same freuency. This could be criticised but I have no better number for it. Thus, if you want to complain about this choice, come up with a better number.
See: https://ourworldindata.org/cor...
Normally, you take between 19-61 days to die (infection is on day -5 death 14-56). Lets pick the lower number.
https://patient.info/news-and-...
Thus, people dying today were infected when 1/2^(19/4) or roughly 3% as many people were infected...
So in conclusion, your point that most shows no signs of the virus means that roughly 8 times more people than known has the disease, while mine means that the deaths are out of a 30 times smaller population than if you look at the current known infected.
We do not have all the numbers of this, but lets use what we have and see where we get.
If we do nothing, roughly 80% will get the disease[1]. It spreads fast, so nearly all of those will get in the last few days (well-known). There is just shy of 1m staffed hospital beds in the US [2]. Thats roughly a third of a precent. Lets round that up and say beds for 1 % of the population - waaay too high. [1] provides a table, table 3, for estimate of how many requires hospitalisation of the infected. The proper way to do it would be to take that table and multiply it with how many people are in the different age groups e.g. from [3], but I am too lazy and just observe that there are roughly equally many in each group up to 70 and then the number above that falls rapidly. A simple calculation then gives roughly 5%. Now, we have beds for 1% (minus beds needed for other patients, but lets ignore those too). Hence, 4% should go to the hospital but cant. How many of those die? I did not find a number for this. I think it very plausible that it is high enough that most people will care for some of those 4% that ended up dieing (ecspically because it is baised and basically everybody had/have parents).
This likely means that opening up or not for the economy are both political suricide, but at least as long as you follow what nearly every other country are doing you can argue that this was the right thing. It is harder to argue for that if you are the only country making that choice.
[1] https://www.thelancet.com/jour...
[2] https://www.aha.org/statistics...
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
How do you figure that? I am from Denmark. We have free education (actually, we get PAID to study - roughly enough to survive on). The drop out rate in computer science when I took it was something 2/3 - i.e. out of the 150 students starting roughly 50 got through.
I am currently teaching in the UK. Here, you pay quite a bit for the education. The drop out rate is something like 5%. I presume it is partly because if you pay you take it more seriously, but another part is that you expect to get through and therefore, the exams are made easier.
"The four building blocks of the universe are fire, water, gravel and vinyl." -- Dave Barry
