croon

Respectfully, I think you've mistaken the definition of the word cohort . A cohort specifically does not include everyone. Please check the definition of cohort and then read section 2.4.

They tested people treated at a small collection of hospitals (the cohort).

In epidemiology, a cohort is simply a defined group of people followed over time. In a population-based cohort study (which this is), the cohort is the entire population of the health district (over 500,000 people).

The study did not just evaluate people treated at the hospital. It used the hospitals EHR to identify the numerator (the heart inflammation cases) out of the denominator (the entire regional population).

The 2020 studies are all retracted. They were over-spinning the centrifuges, I think by a factor of 10 or 100 maybe? They got insanely high positive numbers and the guidance was all updated to correct for that. You can ask an LLM to help you find the CDC publications on that. Don't use those numbers.

You are confusing PCR testing with serology. The "over-spinning" you are referencing relates to PCR cycle thresholds (Ct values), which are used to detect active viral RNA swabs. Seroprevalence studies—which track historic asymptomatic spread—do not look for active RNA. They test blood serum for antibodies using immunoassays (like ELISA). They do not use PCR amplification, and they are absolutely not "all retracted." They are the standard of how we track the infection rate of a population.

Is your motivation to continue discussion political? Or scientific? If it's scientific, let's stick to the facts and follow the science. Don't try to make the science say what you want.

This is... literally what I've been doing the entire time.

No? It's population cohort study, not a hospital clinical sample. You're simply wrong in your assertions.

You can absolutely track asymptomatic infections through seroprevalence studies which we have been doing since 2020.

forgot to mention this was during a pandemic, so you might see significantly lower numbers for heart conditions if the study was repeated today.

Yeah, that's making the point for me.

In retrospective cohort studies, researchers track newly occurring incidents during the study window.

If someone has a history, but suffers a new episode from covid, that is a medical event that should be counted.

Regardless, even if we did go with this Spanish study, you still can't say that a 5% chance of infection is worse. You can say that a 5% of symptomatic infection is worse.

Yes you can. The mechanism for the side effect (as per your own source) is the same in both symptomatic and asymptomatic cases. Recipients of the vaccine do not get respiratory symptoms, and yet can contract the (very rare) side effects.

And as for your source, the author, Dr. Joseph Wu:

“But COVID’s worse,” he added. A case of COVID-19 is about 10 times as likely to induce myocarditis as an mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccination, Wu said. That’s in addition to all the other trouble it causes.

those are still being released over an 80 year period by FOIA court order, you'll get the results when we're all dead

Are you referring to this [0]? It was solved years ago.

The study I posted in this thread that you're posting in is a peer-reviewed retrospective cohort study out of Spain. What is wrong with it?

[0] https://www.denvergazette.com/2022/01/07/judge-scraps-75-yea...

70/100k is baseline. 5/100k is vaccination. 200/100k is unvaccinated with covid.

With vaccination you're at 75/100k.

Without vaccination at 0% chance of covid you're at 70/100k.

Without vaccination at 5% chance you're at 77/100k (worse than 75 here), at 10% 83, etc, etc.

We're supposed to be doing science, right? Seems to me your premise is the one that's unrealistic. Mine is firmly grounded in evidence that we DO have. Not guesses and doomsday religion.

There are plenty of studies linked in this thread, that you're simply ignoring.

Then you also accept that the asymptomatic (unvaccinated) covid risk of myocarditis is higher than the vaccine risk, because it is.

If we accept your (extremely unrealistic) premise, then sure, but the numbers get worse at just a 5% chance of contracting the virus itself, and downhill from there.

Have you actually checked any of the referenced studies in that database? They do not say what Malone claims they say.

I just picked one randomly [0]:

Conclusions and Relevance This systematic review and meta-analysis found low incidence rate and largely favorable early outcomes of COVID-19 mRNA vaccine–associated myopericarditis in adolescents and young adults from a wide range of populations.

I also did a brief dive elsewhere in thread [1]:

The incidence of pericarditis and myocarditis in the total population exposed to at least one dose of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines was 5/100,000 (CI95%:3 to 8 per 100,000), compared to 70/100,000 (CI95%: 66 to 92 per 100,000) in those who were not vaccinated.

The incidence of pericarditis or myocarditis in patients with COVID-19 infection was 200/100,000 people (CI95%: 114 to 306 per 100,000).

[0] https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/fullarticle/...

[1] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38262150/

If you're referring to the Mike Kwan paper, he was on (I believe, it was years ago) the Science Vs podcast to debunk claims by the likes of Malone and Rogan regarding his study.

But yes, there are instances of myocarditis from vaccines, but occurance was 4-5/100k as opposed to unvaccinated 200/100k.

Edit: in his words:

MK: All the cases were hospitalised because we wanted to perform a detailed workup for them

RR: So they didn't need to be there to, like, keep them alive.

WZ: No, no, no, no, no, no, no. In fact, he said that that these these patients, they all cleared up with either painkillers[50] like ibuprofen …

MK: Some of them even not require medications, and they just take a rest, and eventually they recover by themselves, and none of them got severe complications, and no cases of mortality, most importantly. And all of them recover and went back home. And so far, some patients are being followed up around 7 months[51] and they’re very good, no problem, so this is very good news.

The Norwegian study landed on 4.5 cases per 100k from vaccinations [0].

Unvaccinated occurance was 200 per 100k [1].

[0] https://www.oslo-universitetssykehus.no/en/departments/hjert...

[1] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38262150/

I agree, both in theory and that it's easier said than done, but I don't necessarily think that education is a primary reason, but merely a long term prerequisite of the project surviving.

I'm sure some are convinced LLMs can (eventually) manage everything, and others (I'm leaning more here) are convinced that you will always need a minimum amount of people both educated in the fundamentals and the domain to steer the project, and these people wont exist down the path of non-human PRs.

The reasons are functional in aggregate, but not necessarily per specific PR.

You could get a perfectly adequate instance of a PR that is easily readable and verifiable while generated by an LLM, but generally they're not.

A policy pushes the aggregate to at least what looks and communicates as a human made PR that is functionally easier to approve. Whether they are created by an LLM or not is then secondary, but it likely pushes all PRs to be better.

One instance of weather is not climate, but climate dictates variance in weather.

Regardless - the emdash predated LLMs … but that’s going way off topic!

I'm too OCD to not point out this time it was a minus.

They may not recoup R&D costs for a while depending on volume, but they will make a profit per unit. They can't sell them as loss leaders like regular console manufacturers can, since then general computer buyers would get them as a priced down unlocked PC.

I read a plot outline describing "turn of the century" and it threw me when I figured out they were talking about the early 2000s.

Who/what is the "establishment"?

It has 1M context, and it's not a huge codebase, and the context is sub 10% for a thorough task. This is an LLM issue, not a model/harness issue.

I've run copilot/gemini/pi/opencode/etc for a long time, against all major providers. Don't get me wrong, I get good productivity out of it or I wouldn't use it, but it's very different from intelligence.

The $300B are on top of unfreezing assets.

I run Claude Max daily, and tried letting Opus 4.8 write an ADR with known requirements.

After searching through codebase, git history, etc it spat out a surface level reasonable ADR, with the customary bloated text.

I started reading through it asking "Is this sentence needed?: '<sentence>'", whereby it acknowledges that no, it adds nothing and changes nothing not already served by other statements. I ask it to go through each sentence one by one asking the same question. It claims to do so, and give me two suggestions to remove in the entire document.

I then spend a few more minutes giving 10 additional sentences manually that it happily acknowledges are redundant.

I ask why those weren't removed in my previous prompt, and frankly I can't remember specifically what rationalization it gave, I assume because it's not memorable because there can be none, because it very obviously is not reasoning.

This reads like compensation theatrics.

> The Georgia data center is only using ~2% of the county’s water. For comparison, a pharmaceutical manufacturing plant is using ~4% of the county’s water. A construction plant for Rivian cars is using about the same amount of water as Meta’s data center. The data center is functioning like any other normal industry in the county.

How much employment and localized value/tax revenue is created by the pharma plant compared to the data center to offset the environmental effect?

The downstream portion isn't proven, and more importantly, even if it was, it's not localized to where the data center is built (and its effect on the local population).

Product safety is about information. When Bob knows that a particular brand of milk is adulterated with chalk, he doesn't buy it. Which means that all you need for this is product labeling and liability.

This is regulation, and it's only as good as enforcement. Meaning it requires government inspections and labs. Again, we've already proven this in history.

sue them if your house burns down

Sure, if you only care about compensation and not prevention. Also I don't think you've considered the practicalities of your example, in that no regular person will 1. determine the battery cause. 2. prove it. 3. bring a successful suit against a corporation.

Consider it this way: Why doesn't US customs exclude unsafe products from being imported from other countries? Consider what they would have to do to actually accomplish that.

Well... they do seize millions of products yearly. It's generally sub-$800 packages getting through. Your original point of incumbents targetting upstarts and thus forcing "burner" companies is the wrong causality. Burner companies are incentivized to specifically skirt liability and reputation. Regulating the frontend incentivizes self-policing against sub-companies designed to be dissolved.

On Craigslist I have direct contact with the seller. Not on Temu.

Fedex has (almost) no idea what they're shipping.

These are not even apples and oranges.

Paypal is not fronting products or shipping them.

Industries dump toxic waste into waterways if they can get away with it in the US today (literally today [0]). I agree that I might not be specifically worried about borax milk if FDA was reversed, but I would absolutely expect risky shortcuts in food offerings.

The incentives in the market has never changed. That's what regulation is for, shifting market incentives/forces to favor consumers/society.

[0] https://www.kptv.com/2026/05/28/woman-sentenced-conspiring-d...

The sellers are in practice anonymous, and the consumer facing Temu (or Shein, or Aliexpress, etc) very much markets to consumers, yet shirk any responsibility. They are Walmart but ignore the little accountability Walmart faces.

Of course Temu is responsible for things I buy in the Temu app, and pay Temu for, which then Temu ships to me.

We've already tried the third one in the US before the FDA. A ton of people kept dying.

Milk was filled with borax and formaldehyde, coffee was cut with sawdust/charred bone/lead, spices were often 100% counterfeit.

The market (heavily) incentivized fraud.

In New York, in one year (1857), 8000 infants died to "swill milk" [0].

The second option (FDA and regulation) wasn't lobbied for, and the Food Bill of 1902 actually failed through heavy (counter)lobbying initially [1], until the Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906 [2] passed.

[0] https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1858/05/13/785...

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvey_Washington_Wiley

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pure_Food_and_Drug_Act

Tron 3 would be fine if not for the main character. Every other character/performance is great IMO, and the Trent Reznor soundtrack. The main performance was just incredibly bad, which sinks the whole movie.