HN user
I'm in Taiwan and for various reasons don't want to move, so somewhat concerned. I don't think I'll be able to avoid it, so I'm exercising more so my body is in better condition to fight it.
I'm also making sure to be stocked in non perishable food, rice, etc.
Given the number of cases in Singapore, this may not be the case for this virus.
The Fed has been buying treasuries and doing repo market purchases recently, expanding their balance sheet and dumping billions into the financial economy. Those funds have to move somewhere.
This would seem to imply that if the government has ample evidence that you murdered someone, they can require you to admit to it in court.
They can require you to tell them where the body is if you “encrypted” its location (i.e. buried it somewhere)
A transparent and verifiable governance model. Much better than what we have today.
When did I say it isn't? The idea is that some blocks can be accepted in lieu of the original if signed by certain entities that have been voted in by the community. In this way you can change previous blocks in the chain.
Providing a way to instantaneously edit past transactions in a blockchain with the proper credentials sacrifices the only useful property that distinguishes blockchains from traditional databases (decentralized verification of/consensus about state).
There are different categories of data. Data which refers to the the chain itself must be immutable, I agree. But data that represents the content of articles posted there does not.
The concept is bad because you don't want that property; you want a mutable data store with privileged and unprivileged access.
You do want that property for some categories of data. You don't want unaccountability in who can update articles and what changes they can make, but you do want the articles to be changeable.
What this provides is to prevent an organization from being corruptable. A government or powerful corporate entity could pressure wikipedia into changing an article to suit their purposes, and wikipedia could stone wall and refuse to comment on any changes they made for that purpose.
If it was on a blockchain, and an editor was pressured into making such a change, the community would be able to directly vote that editor out and get the original content restored.
Jesus Christ, I'm not the poster child for this, ok? Just because you can find something you think is a problem with an implementation I came up with on the fly, doesn't mean the whole concept is bad.
Fine, make it instant. People can compare the old data with the new, and notice, and vote out an editor who is abusing their power.
I can give you one implementation off the top of my head. You could, in the blockchain, elect some editors that could remove things, but the effect would be subject to a time delay, such as a month for example. So things removed would still be on the blockchain but would be marked with some sort of quarantine bit that is set later in the chain.
When it comes time to remove the offending data, the software that verifies the blockchain would accept in lieu of the actual data, a set of signatures of the elected editors. All nodes would replace the block with banned data with the replaced one.
It really isn't that hard.
then you have billions of people now able to access illegal content, that can never be removed because it is on a blockchain
It's software. A blockchain can be programmed to accommodate your use case. It can also accommodate preventing bias all powerful editors from destroying or manipulating information without the approval of the community, which wikipedia does not.
How many coronavirus articles are you going to post this to?
Read the first couple of chapters. Not bad, flows well. Maybe being a little more descriptive wouldn't hurt. Thanks.
I always found a shot of straight whisky was good for a cold.
Huh? They started quarantining patients on January 1st, and fully quarantined Wuhan on January 22.
And that says nothing for why the data matches up exactly to an ideal model and furthermore that model (quadratic) isn't correct for the spread of viruses (which is exponential).
If you look at data from outside of China, you can see a regular jagged line full of noise which you would expect for real data. The data from China stands out like a mannequin in a lineup.
The numbers are ridiculous. What gives it away, is that if you plot them onto a graph, they almost exactly match what an algorithm would predict, unchanging regardless of quarantines, blockades, etc. that have been enacted.
The further kicker is that the model it aligns to is quadratic where an actual virus spread is exponential. So, the Chinese are not only making up numbers and following an ideal model exactly but can't even figure out to use a valid ideal model to generate those fake numbers from.
See more here:
And the Fed...
Don't rest your argument on official data coming out of China. There is evidence they are even burning bodies now (SO2 levels) to get rid of the evidence.
He raised awareness, though. That's better than all the governments and news media organizations of the world ignoring it. If he should comp people for his actions, what about them?
It's not the reporters, but management that is corrupt. They dictate what can and cannot be printed.
On the other side of the coin, independent reporters don't get much traction / notoriety unless they kneel to sensationalism.
So there isn't any practical way to do unbiased reporting and still get your voice heard.
Because with enough honking, they can get the crowd to ignore the traffic light and start to inch forward anyway.
Reported murders...
Great, make them fat and out of work.
I've learned that VR can eliminate some of the stir craziness you get.
It's different this time...
Most important point, as far as I'm concerned:
Ok so - definitely, the death count is too low. We all agree there. But before you freak out, there's a bright spot. We CAN also put an upper bound with a fair amount of certainty on the general death rate. How? Because there have been enough cases reported globally already, and enough data from the patients OUTSIDE of China, that we can tell the death rate is NOT anywhere near 10% with a strong degree of certainty (many patients have recovered, and are just awaiting the viral test all-clear before they can be discharged. Most other patients are in stable and recovering condition).
So we don't know, from the China data, whether the fatality rate is 0.5% or 1% or 2% or 3%... but we can be FAIRLY sure it's not 5% and definitely not above that. Simply because otherwise we'd already see the mortality in International cases, and that's outside of Chinese control.
Of course, this assumes access to a hospital, so if they get overwhelmed, I would expect the death rate to be higher, but unsure of how much.
Nowadays, what source is completely reliable? The best you can do is sample a bunch of them and try to piece together the whole truth from that, because everybody seems to have an angle.
Heres another article: https://www.zerohedge.com/health/man-behind-global-coronavir...
What also leads me to believe this may be the case is that there was (according to the article) experiments on bats being run, and in China, people often find random animals, in drainage ditches, etc., and then go on to sell them for meat. It's possible that the bats they were working on were improperly disposed of, and then picked up and sold at the wet market.
I'm not asserting initialism vs acronyms. I'm talking about the grammar of "Who did".
If you actually meant the World Health Organization, you'd have to interpret that as "World Health Organization did". This is obvious incorrect, and rather should be "The World Health Organization did". So there is no way for your daughter to have interpreted what you said as talking about the World Health Organization, whether initialism or acronym.
Sorry if I took you away from fact checking open mic night. :-D
No, I wasn't distracted at all. Thanks for the concern, though.
The mass production of high end gaming rigs is only going to continue if the market continues to buys them. If thin-clients become the new standard, they will cease to become an option. If you have a hard time ponying up for the funds for a high end gaming rig today, think of what it would take to buy a million dollar super computer because all the high end PC manufacturers have all gone out of business.
Calling my argument "poorly thought-out" is rather rich when you haven't thought about the ramifications of a the success of a thin-client model, and the bust of the PC market.
How about in a nearly empty airport?