As a resident of a free western democratic republic, I am shocked, shocked that there is spying in this establishment. We need a full list of all the countries where Nokia has provided equipment or expertise to link mobile carriers to government systems that can eavesdrop on calls, emails, or text messages.

The Canadian government's reputation is worse, in my opinion.

The analogy can be nit-picked in other ways: (1) Binance is not the same as Coinbase, (2) HODLers only leave funds exposed for the length of the trade, (3) etc., etc. I think this line of argument misses the point.

It's my second sentence that should settle the matter: if I need to have this argument with you before I'm allowed to use Binance, something is wrong. Who are you? Get out of my way. What I mean by this: these "Commissions" are not trying to clean up crypto exchanges so the market can flourish, which would be a legitimate market-making function. They're attacking them as aggressively as they can get away with doing. At least, that is the perception of many people using the exchanges, and those people are not crazy and should be entitled to have their opinions respected by their "elected" governments, yet that's not happening.

I trust Binance to have my best interests at heart more than I trust the Ontario Securities Commission.

Binance's Ontario users presumably agree. If we lived in democracies, that would be the end of this matter.

Masks just keep falling.

most houses work perfectly fine with 2.4 kW systems.

A comment above says 9kWh/day for 4 people excluding heat and hot water, so at least two comments in the thread agree on the ballpark.

You made a mistake somewhere. A single refrigerator averaged out over the day is 100W. And you have electric heat?

This is out of control. You can build a house for twice that. How has this number changed relative to the cost of a fixed-size house since 1950?

strong agreement.

tl;dr Any engagement with this industry is risky. They're not properly motivated or supervised and don't have your best interests at heart. They're "corrupt" in that they no longer have good peer-based systems for settling on consensuses around the truth. Their scientific conclusions contain systemic error.

There are many hard-working sincere doctors, they're not totally corrupt, and their legacy has made them powerful helpers, but when evaluating the risks and benefits of whatever they offer, all this should be kept in mind, not just the positive things ignoring the rest.

Or we could keep making reductive analogies and dividing into partisan camps that attack each other. <shrug>

This seems infeasible. If they are too stupid to give the injection properly yelling at them will not make them smarter. You need to either filter the specialists you trust for competence, avoid the specialist field altogether, or do the math and take your chances.

I'm not denying that you've latched onto something important in the comment threads. I don't know, but it sounds plausible enough. I'm saying, "just insist" is cruel optimism or victim-blaming and not a workable plan to prescribe onto someone else. If it worked for you, great, fine, but I don't think it would work for me or most others, and I have trouble believing it really did work for you and think maybe you just insulted them, they appeased you, and you left feeling smug because of all those other suckers who weren't in the know and took risks. This is no way to run things.

RISC-V is interesting to the industry, but as the summary says there's no value beyond some day lower price / performance.

Cheri RISC-V can do things ARM can't. It can provide memory protection without an MMU or TLB flushing so it can be used within a process, for example to isolate an untrusted codec, parser, or web rendering library. It can provide bounds-checking to C-like languages in hardware so there's no instrumentation or associated performance penalty. It can enforce C 'const' qualifiers, for example across a library ABI. The performance of Cheri RISC-V is about the same as the RISC-V design it modifies, and <10% extra gates are needed for the extra feature.

Currently this CPU can be emulated at low performance or run on a $10k FPGA evaluation board at high price / performance. A slow RISC-V core, even one slower than ARM for the cost, would change the situation completely and make this technology practical for some uses, like network edge devices or miscellaneous embedded systems.

Will non-Russians be cut off from Russian cloud services?
asking for a friend.

Cite them or GTFO.

A comment like yours would be useful in a high-trust environment. Many friend-groups have a couple people who dig through PDFs while most just read The New York Times. You could be the PDFxpert amongst your friends, or one of them.

We're in public here. We don't and shouldn't trust each other. That's okay, but sadly the discussion has retreated to partisan camps, and watching people call the other camp idiots was tiresome on day zero.

I can give some citations which agree with you technically, but not with the apocalyptic conclusion you imply. Marek's disease is an example of highly-vaccinated populations driving a virus to become more deadly. Most scientists think the coronavirus will become endemic, but that it will be mild because natural immunity is cross-reactive, and will make most mutant viruses mild for a person exposed to their ancestor, and that this effect means delaying the spread in low-risk populations like children could cost lives because "current endemic coronaviruses infect children before age 15," an age where the novel coronavirus isn't much more risky than any other cold.

By hyperlinking to your claims of authority you use of the power of the World Wide Web to advance discussion, communicate with greater nuance, and heal toxic partisanship. HTH. HAND.

It's not bothersome to the censorious people that Spotify runs a diverse business. It's delightful to them because it makes Spotify into a softer target for these censorious activists. The activists' target is Rogan, not Spotify.

No, that's not a fair conclusion. Quoting TFA:

If the mechanism is the spike protein, the vaccine or the real disease could cause the effect.

I don't think you can even assume which causes it worse. Knowing which causes it worse would require accurate denominators that include asymtomatic infections of the real virus not just "cases" or "presented at the hospital," and for vaccinated it would need to track "long vaccine" cases as accurately as "long covid" cases. It would need age breakdowns since we know that's a ~1000x confounder for the real virus. It should use the best possible early treatment on the real-disease side to compare our true options and not kneecap the alternative. Without doing any of this, balancing risks and benefits would already side against vaccinating recovered people where no benefit in outcomes has been shown, only "benefit" in non-outcome markers that are not meaningful like "antibody titers." We should always side against that a priori, but now that we know some disease pathologies are caused by the spike itself we would side against that urgently. You also need to consider that vaccinated people will eventually get the real disease, too, as it transitions to endemic, and calculate risks vs. benefits from end to end, including all boosters you plan to suggest and all reinfections you expect to occur given the respective durability of natural vs. vaccine immunity.

We don't even yet have consensus that this effect exists and is real, so I'm asking for a lot of investigation, and you might say it's unreasonable and we should just vaccinate faster right now before it's too late. But for a spike-mediated effect these are the things that need to be shown to decide whether vaccine or wild disease causes a worse effect. Even if it's your best judgement in uncertainty, the leap straight to pro-vaccine drum beat is still without evidence. It's not an idealistic objection. It's timely and relevant because many doctors and jurisdictions think we're giving too many boosters, and arguments like yours that ignore the risk of vaccines are the reason for that.

Yes, that's a plausible explanation.

It was plausible for any earlier paper about vaccinated vs. unvaccinated, though. There are a lot of confounders between these two groups.

Let's try to stay on topic, which is whether boosters make omnicron spread faster or slower. The answer is unknown, but it's a fact. The fact won't depend on someone else doing what you think they should or not. You have identified a statistical confounder, but adding a weird moral element to the confounder is off topic and prevents most people from thinking clearly.

We know a mechanism that could make boosters seem to worsen omnicron when they don't: risk compensation.

We know a mechanism that could make boosters actually worsen omnicron: OAS.

Why are you jumping to conclusions?

Most unvaccinated vs. vaccinated studies are riddled with serious confounders: age, obesity, and serious comorbidity. They use long time windows spanning multiple variants, and play other denominator games to get the result they want, if you'll remember "99% unvaccinated."

Only when you get the result you don't want do you become interested in confounders and denominators, and you seize on a warning in the paper as if it's certainty. The right reaction is UNcertainty. You should be saying, "I acknowledge vaccines worsening omnicron spread might be a problem, but it's still unproven. At least we can say the vaccine is much weaker against this variant, and it was already weak enough at preventing spread of delta (40% - 60% according to CDC on July 29th) that full vaccination would not lead to extinction: R0 was greater than vaccine's effectiveness. Omnicron has higher R0 and less effective vaccine, so we should do further investigation to make sure we're not making things worse, and we should not use vaccination boosters as a tool to control spread of Omnicron. If we use them, it should be knowing the risk they might make the spread faster and certainly won't make it much slower."

I don't think the endless booster plan is medically sane for the individual. It would need a lot more evidence of benefit before I'd be interested in following it. Others can reach different conclusions, but my conclusion is very reasonable because there isn't enough evidence of benefit. For the group, there's no benefit at all: someone else's vaccine does not affect you because you will eventually be challenged by the virus, probably pretty soon, regardless of vaccination or boost uptake, considering everything we know and the error bars on our knowledge. It's no part of a plan with an exit strategy.

There's no such thing as informed consent without the right to weigh the evidence and make an unforced choice. While the Denmark study doesn't settle the matter, it underscores this point powerfully: your unproven speculation should not be treated as conclusive and backed with force, as was done in Israel.

I've seen some of your other posts and love them. If moderation vote were weighted by inverse of user number you would get 5's every time. People shun you for pointing out they wrecked their own house. Don't take it hard, mang.