In 2013, when it hired Brian Krzanich as CEO, who invested in almost anything but the core business. None of his investments paid off, so Intel basically lost 5 years of development and a lot of cash.

It looks like either an uncontained engine failure that severed all three hydraulic lines or a bomb on board. I don't know any other reason for such a dramatic plunge from this altitude.

According to the article: "Employees say that under Mr. Thompson, an accountant by training and a former chief financial officer, every part of the business was examined for cost savings and common security practices were eschewed because of their expense. His approach helped almost triple SolarWinds’ annual profit margins to more than $453 million in 2019 from $152 million in 2010."

If you operate in a market where buyers cannot objective assess cybersecurity of the offered products and security practices employed by the company, that creates strong market pressure to spend as little as possible on cybersecurity. A similar problem can be seen in other markets, such as used cars as discussed in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Coronavirus deaths worldwide per one million population:
https://www.statista.com/stati...

As you can see, Italy and Sweden have less deaths per million than the US or the UK. On the other hand, Belgium and Spain have more deaths per million than the US or the UK.

I don't want to suggest that this number alone tells us what country did better in terms of its response, because there are many factors that may explain why some countries have higher death tolls than others.

It looks like the post was translated by Google translate, and then some parts of translated sentences were cut out. For example:

Google translate: I want to share how I got sick and convincingly warn everyone: I also thought that there was no covid, and this is all relative. Until he got sick.

E! Online: I want to share how I got sick and convincingly warn everyone: I also thought that there was no covid... Until I got sick.

I don't think he has ever literally denied existence of COVID but rather was one those who do not take COVID seriously. Considering that he had some heart issues, it was really stupid, as he was in a high risk category despite being young.

Accordingly to his wife, he had some heart issues before COVID.

Banning one brand and a few accounts will achieve nothing as the same crazy ideas will continue to spread under other innocently looking tags (such as Savethechildren). The real issue with FB and other social networks is that they create echo chambers where extreme views get amplified by algorithms, which are looking for messages that invoke more emotional response from users. So outrages claims and enunciation tend to spread very well, while impartial analysis of arguments tend to be ignored by algorithms.

There are 4 specific viruses known as HCoVNL63, HCoV229E, HCoVOC43, and HCoVHKU1, which are commonly referred as "common cold" coronaviruses. So it looks like that you don't know what you are talking about here.

LOL... Is this the Dunning–Kruger effect?

First of all, there are many mutations of SARS-CoV-2, which are wildly spread. Most naturally occurring mutations have no functional consequence for the virus, i.e. they do not affect virulence, pathogenicity, or immunogenicity. Therefore, they are considered different lineages of the same virus. The D614G mutation in the spike protein is the only known mutation so far that potentially affects virulence of SARS-CoV-2, and therefore, we speak about two different strains of SARS-CoV-2 while many different lineages exist.

Second, as demonstrated in the aforementioned studies, reinfection with the same strain is possible. In fact, it was something that was suspected in a few cases before, but it was never conclusively demonstrated, because without complete genome sequencing, it is impossible to exclude a possibility of resurgence of the initial infection that was not fully cleared. Unfortunately, many popular publications confuse words "lineage" and "strain", so they reported it as "re-infection with a different strain of the virus" while it was just a different lineage.

We know that people get reinfected with "common cold" coronaviruses regularly. In a study that monitored 10 subjects over a time span of 35 years, the median reinfection time was about 2 years, frequent reinfections happened at 12 months postinfection, and "[i]n a few cases, reinfections occurred as early as 6 months (two times for HCoV229E and one time for HCoVOC43) and 9 months (two times for HCoVNL63)."
https://www.medrxiv.org/conten...

We still don't know much about SARS-CoV-2, but it is likely that it will have similar reinfection patterns at least in those individuals who had a mild decease (usually, more severe infections produce strong, durable immune responses).

Apparently, you have no idea what "native immunity" means. I was NOT speaking about "native immunity", I was speaking T-cell cross-reactivity. They have nothing in common!

70% (or even 75%) of the population is an estimate for herd immunity, but it does not mean that this number of people would have to recover from COVID-19 to halt the epidemic, because some people can be immune due to T-cell cross-reactivity between "common cold" coronaviruses and SARS-CoV-2. There are different estimates of what percent of the population has SARS-CoV-2-reactive T cells. Accordingly to one study:

Source: https://www.cell.com/cell/pdf/...

I saw another study that gave between 20%-50%. In any case, this is a significant percent of the population. Also, epidemiological models suggest that there are far more people who are immune to SARS-CoV-2 than those who have antibodies to it, which can be explain only by T-cell cross-reactivity.

Some people are immunocompromised due to different medical conditions (organ transplant surgery, cancer treatment, etc), so even if they are vaccinated, they may not develop enough antibodies to prevent serious infection. Also, there is age-associated decline in immune function known as immunosenescence. Usually those vulnerable categories rely on herd immunity to avoid infection, but that requires sterilizing immunity among other people.

Production of vaccine requires significant funding. If you wait for all trials to be complete, it would delay availability of the vaccine for half a year or more. IIRC, negotiations about its production started in May, and if everything goes well, it will be available only in the beginning of the next year.

This vaccine may not be panacea, because even if it works as expected, it may not provide sterilizing immunity, in other words, vaccinated people will not fall seriously ill, but they can spread the virus to others.

Based on a previous trial in rhesus macaques, this vaccine has one serious limitation -- vaccinated animals did not develop sterilizing immunity. Though all six vaccinated animals developed antibodies to SARS-CoV-2, which prevented virus replication in the lungs, "reduction in viral shedding from the nose was not observed."
https://www.biorxiv.org/conten...

So if the vaccine works in the same way in humans as in rhesus macaques, then vaccinated individuals can be asymptomatic spreaders of the virus.

That's not true. First of all, Sweden introduced some measures to contain the spread, but those measures did not go as far as in other countries. As result, as it stands now, Sweden has a HIGHER death rate per capita than the US and many other countries: https://www.statista.com/stati... All countries that did worse than Sweden have a higher population density, which makes much more difficult to contain the spread even with more strict measures.