Jabber was part of the wave of technologies and early dev 2000s that thought XML/XSLT could solve waves of interoperability and middleware issues. Instead it was just bloat in an era where bandwidth still mattered and Apache Cocoon died fast. JSON replaced XML because you didn't need to sort your backslash closing object tax of annoyance. CSS became more important than XHTML, SOAP, REST and everything superceded it.

XMPP failed because there was no incentive for Google and Facebook to let their users outside the gardens. The same issues plague the decentralized platforms of today like Mastodon.

Been around long to see history repeat is fun.

Abbott's Navica app links to its binaxnow covid test. Same red green functionality... no temperature check theater!

...and restore Glass-Steagal. Maybe expand it so FAANG can't run hedge funds.

Unfortunately WHO confused a lot of people with that news. They are distinguishing between those who never get symptoms (asymptomatic) and those who eventually do, pre-symptomatic. About 20% of the people who get the virus are asymptomatic. For those who do eventually develop symptoms, it looks like 40-60% of them spread the virus prior to symptoms.

Sadly, this will not make headlines. The damage is done.

It's a molecular test. It detects virus RNA by taking swabs from the nose or back of throat and sticking them in the reagent part of the machine with rapid amplification.

An antibody test would be serological and by definition require a blood draw. The id now system doesn't handle blood.

https://fda.gov/media/136525/d... The clinical study is at the bottom with 100% identity of expected results. If the virus mutates, tests will be off. Lots of gotchas as you would expect around a EUA.

Greets.

The new Rapid Test for Covid-19 by Abbott Labs was developed with R & D in San Diego, California and Scarborough, Maine. It is NOT an Antigen test and was NOT developed in Belgium.

Since I logged in, I can't declare anything else but consider this authoritative.

Obviously the comment is a pretty eye rolling, but it isn't something that even needs debate. With a small investment we could test just how viable this is and not have to argue it's merits in the abstract.

Incorrect. Any mutation, by definition, is new information. Simply because you do not understand how things work, doesn't mean you are justified in inserting spurious claims as a result. You should, instead, start with "I don't know" and then do the work necessary to understand. One can do this by taking classes in biology, or by using the internet to find credible sources of information to help you understand better. This, of course, requires you are sufficiently equipped to understand what is credible and what is not.

Whenever the word 'code' is used in biology, such as in describing DNA, it throws needless confusion into the mix. Chemical processes are not code. Code is written by, and with purpose, by a coder... or a creator. And that is not what this is. The waters just get muddied for anyone clinging to nonsensical religious machinations about the origin of life.

I mean, this headline was obviously coming the moment they decided to 'crack down' on bad stuff. I wonder if people with enough technical wisdom even exist at tech companies anymore to ever prevent stuff like this from happening. You'd have to be pretty myopic not to know your dragnet was going to unintentionally snag a hell of a lot of innocent collateral. Is it just me, or is our collective ability to do anything technically becoming worse over time rather than better?

Seems like some sort of attractant...

Aircraft that are inherently unstable without automation is nothing new. And even with that, the system was merely (when working as designed) adjusting the flight dynamics to match the earlier 737. It was a minor tweak to how the aircraft operated.

The problem was not the physical engineering but rathe all software. The author is correct that something went way off the rails on the software engineering front. For systems where peopleâ(TM)s very lives are at stake, the shoddy implementation and vetting of this behavior is shocking.

I require more discipline in my software development process than this and we merely make games. But even then we constantly ask ourselves âoewhat can ho wrongâ to avoid embarrassing conflagrations. When you operate live services a bug can affect every customer simultaneously. But at least no one is physically harmed.

Note that far more complex bugs have killed people in other industries such as the run away cat scan due to a race condition. But what is what is disturbing here is the lack of care in the implementation and even design of this feature. It was inevitable that people would die.

Moreover, I am appalled the Boeing also nickel and dimes buys on safety features that seem to have no significant expense associated with them. Such as the indicator for when the two AOA sensors disagree. Somehow that is an expensive upgrade. Seriously?

Coinbase is struggling to keep up with demand. And while that's going on, it's a mess. Wire transfers go missing, and customer support is a joke. Is your $90K in limbo? No problem, just call their... oh wait, the people who answer the phone have zero power to do anything. Anything at all.

Oh, so just submit a support ticket. Good luck getting a replay. Or, like me, watch your case just vanish into the ether.

No, Coinbase cannot be trusted with your money. Not at the moment.

I'm amazed that software engineers work on online games and do not understand that you can never trust the client.

I get that mistakes can be made, but this is generally a software design and architecture problem.

Having said that, today we found a flaw in our server that let someone sneak in number that caused an overflow in one of our APIs for our online mobile game. The net result was a huge positive value in virtual currency. Of course we found it because of rule #2: Make sure you have systems that detect anomalies on anything important. The easiest of which is something like virtual currency spikes, so that stood out like a sore thumb.

Clever game hackers know to fly under the radar, but their impact (even if they get away with it) is therefore limited. But even then you can detect exploits with more mysterious mechanisms, which I will not name. :)