To be a bit more constructive:
At baseline, individuals with COVID-19 had a mean age of 64.5 years (SD 19.2 years) and 54.9% were male. Compared with the general population, individuals in hospital with COVD-19 were more likely to be aged â¥50 years, male, living in a deprived area, a former smoker, and overweight or obese (Table 1). Individuals with COVID-19 were also more likely to be comorbid than the general population, with a higher prevalence of prior hospitalisation and all measured pre-existing conditions (most notably hypertension, MACE, respiratory disease and diabetes).
In essence, the "why" is just a causal pattern. Meaning your neural has to not only correlate over its inputs, but over the changes with time too!
Do you have any citation to back up your claims? Can you perhaps formalize what a "causal pattern" is?
That is the great contribution of Pearl and the work building on it (such as the one by Bengio et al. presented in the article). Pearl (and his collaborators) developed formalisation to express causality mathematically and thus make it "computer friendly". From this they could derive some amazing results. For example, usually you need interventional experiments (e.g., randomized controlled trials) to proof causality. However, Pearl could show that in some cases (specific structures of the underlying causal model) observational studies alone can be enough to do that. No interventional experiment needed. Seeing this work expanded to have machines do the actual reasoning is truly impressive.
I suggest you check out Pearl's google scholar profile and read some of his recent papers (they are all freely available). An easy to access introduction is perhaps The seven tools of causal inference, with reflections on machine learning..
In an attempt to control the mosquito-borne diseases yellow fever, dengue, chikungunya, and Zika fevers, a strain of transgenically modified Aedes aegypti mosquitoes containing a dominant lethal gene has been developed by a commercial company, Oxitec Ltd. If lethality is complete, releasing this strain should only reduce population size and not affect the genetics of the target populations. Approximately 450 thousand males of this strain were released each week for 27 months in Jacobina, Bahia, Brazil. We genotyped the release strain and the target Jacobina population before releases began for >21,000 single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs). Genetic sampling from the target population six, 12, and 27–30 months after releases commenced provides clear evidence that portions of the transgenic strain genome have been incorporated into the target population. Evidently, rare viable hybrid offspring between the release strain and the Jacobina population are sufficiently robust to be able to reproduce in nature. The release strain was developed using a strain originally from Cuba, then outcrossed to a Mexican population. Thus, Jacobina Ae. aegypti are now a mix of three populations. It is unclear how this may affect disease transmission or affect other efforts to control these dangerous vectors. These results highlight the importance of having in place a genetic monitoring program during such releases to detect un-anticipated outcomes.
A dose of hypocrisy is perhaps inevitable in an organisation the size of Microsoft. Critics level a more fundamental charge against its foreign policy, however. Where, they ask, does itâ"and fellow tech giantsâ"derive the legitimacy to be independent actors on the international stage? This is the wrong question to pose. As businesses, they have every right to defend the interests of shareholders, employees and customers. As global ones, their priorities may differ from those of their home countryâ(TM)s elected officials. And as entities which control much of the worldâ(TM)s digital infrastructure, they should have a say in designing the international norms which govern it. At a time when many governments refuse to lead, why should the firms not be allowed to? Especially if, like Microsoftâ(TM)s, their efforts blend principles with pragmatism.
How does your company deal with the ever more complex realities of world politics?
All encryption can be broken. If it couldn't be broken, it would be useless because you would never be able to recover the encrypted information.
No. Key exchange is a problem, but a one-time pad, if implemented correctly, cannot be cracked.
For most enterprise devices, they aren't going to be having other apps installed. They probably aren't going to be running anything but company apps, the web browser if at all using company web pages. So it hardly matters if this security issue is present.
The problem is that running JavaScript is enough, see for example: https://webkit.org/blog/8048/what-spectre-and-meltdown-mean-for-webkit/. And most devices that do have a browser will at some point in time use it to access untrusted hosts...
More importantly, we have the math. You can't outlaw math.
Programmers do it bit by bit.
