skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Great podcast with a Swedish Emergency Room Doctor.

According to the data they reference, Lock downs don't work and there is evidence that this virus is becoming more like the other 4 Corona Viruses in circulation.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w6IeN6sgJ3g
> Makes no practical or business sense? How many engineers does Microsoft have working on the Windows kernel?

This is really anecdotal, as I sadly did not find the article I have this information from, but IIRC, the core NT Kernel team isn't as big as one would expect, about a dozen to two dozens maximum (big emphasis on "if I recall correctly").
I'm probably biased but comptime doesn't seem as elegant as the mechanism D provides for doing CTFE (i.e. I prefer a separation of quasi-template parameters)
The tracking is separate from the ballot. When the ballot arrives they mark that they got a ballot from voter Alex who lives at 123 Main St, and then separate the ballot from the tracking info.
Still waiting for the non-web Office on Linux. Call me back when that happens.
How to keep your product meeting lean
Are you taking about actual real need in cities or a fantasy? It sounds flippant, but other counties don't need such ammo.

The murder clearance rates are low, corruption seem to be persistent problem and actual police work does not actually seem to involve attacking actual super armed gangs.
Yeah, the original appears to be https://www.4sd.info/covid-19-narratives/reflections-about-t....

Notably, Navarro is explicit in that article about it not being an argument for the let-it-run-wild "herd immunity" approach.
If the poorest in society can no longer buy food or medicine, the problem becomes very medical very quickly.
It doesn't work in court. FUD works in business because people are (necessarily) risk-averse. If a giant company whose legal team is larger than your entire payroll says they will find some way to sue you for doing X, are you really going to gamble your business to do it? Even if you're fairly sure they're blowing smoke, that's a hard decision to make.
> And how can anyone call themselves an adult if they need some third party to come in and censor things for them? You can block, you can mute. You can stick to trusted groups. You can also learn self control and not feed the trolls.

I'm sure many HN readers are perfectly capable of reading, researching and filtering. But let's face facts: many people are gullible at best, and at worst put themselves in an echo chamber where they take everything at face value. I don't want to make this about politics, but a prime example is Trump. The POTUS makes several verifiable lies on a daily basis, and a large segment of people just lap it up.
They've all had this almost since basically prehistory (e.g. mod_proxy_lb). The process management bit not so much, but having a web server manage app server processes, that's an abstraction I could live without
Facebook's Libra must not start until properly regulated -G7 draft
"The most compassionate approach that balances the risks and benefits of reaching herd immunity is to allow those who are at minimal risk of death to live their lives normally to build up immunity to the virus through natural infection, while better protecting those who are at highest risk"

This flies in the face of rationality. You don't just get sick for a day and gain herd immunity. You are sick and contagious for weeks, you then infect other people whom go out and infect other people. Do these doctors seriously believe people at risk can just isolate themselves from the world? Most don't even realize they're at risk.

If you want to put that risk of infection and death onto people then say it, but don't try to sugar coat it like this is a good idea that will protect everyone. If anything it's necessary to keep markets afloat and various economies from failing.
scientists shouldnt be in the business of setting policy. they should report facts and its up to the public in a democracy and its representatives to make the policy. policy setting adds value judgements to facts.

ie science can tell us the amount of deaths or tradeoffs associated with certain choices but should never make the decision itself.
> as low as Sweden

As low as only a thousand times higher than Taiwan?
> What this tells us is that the research had yeilded such results as

Personally, if I was tasked with making sure everyone respected the American Army I'd make sure to hire a magician and keep that hire very very secret.

I'm not saying there aren't any serious technical breakthroughs.

But I'd still hire the best reliable magician I could get.

After all, any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic and my bet is that it goes the other way too. (Some replace "magic" with "rigged demo" and that too is true - and possibly relevant.)

Also, I think it is Penn or Teller who says something along the lines of: there's one thing people constantly underestimate when it comes to magic and that is how incredibly far magicians are willing to go to conceal their tricks.
I love Cloudflare but at the same time its expansion just make me uneasy. So much of the internet is gathered under cloudflare, a single failure point. And issues like Cloudbleed definitely does not make it better.
They could do that in a much more straightforward way by recording the name and signature from the envelope when they tally the votes, if they wanted.
As the article points out, the cost of the house is the same as the cost of a traditionally built house in the most expensive home construction area of the United States, and at the same time you are extremely limited in the geometries you can use.

Does that answer the question?
Show HN: I made a list of 9 thought experiments for making hard decisions
The box only plays classic ICT tunes.
Excellent point.

Except ..

for many individuals and for many groups of humans, goals change as the costs of a given goal become more clear. It's not always possible to state a priori what the goal is, and even after settling on one goal, new reasons (new costs) may appear to push us towards a different goal.
Ok, took me 20 minutes, and I forgot to count the draws–I only counted the games when there is a winner.

But I think his math doesn't work out. The solution is only about ~100 lines. If typing speed was the bottleneck, it would only take 2 or 3 minutes from start to finish.

> The most talented candidates will think about it for a few seconds, then write the program as fast as they can type (and they'll type fast). You can almost sense their frustration because they think way faster than the keyboard allows them to interface with the computer. Typing speed is their bottleneck. (...) The whole process will take about 10 minutes from start to finish.
Companies change more than people do. Am I supposed to trust Google blindly with all my data now because they used to say they wouldn't be evil? Am I supposed to continue trusting boeing because they used to be an engineering driven culture, while ignoring the fact that there are different people in charge now?
Saying what stereotypes about jews are is different from pushing these stereotypes as truth.
Spend less, save more, invest. It's boring but it works, regardless of how much you're earning.
That's not true. We've had the drop-boxes for the last few elections.
These calls for a certain sort of action are very hard to parse properly and assess, even if we could all agree on an assessment mechanism (itself also almost impossible). I’m personally skeptical of these minority-report PhD calls to action because I think they prescribe a direction rather than raising the actual things to be considered by local jurisdictions to make a good decision.

And it’s really hard to even get agreement on what to consider in order to decide! For instance, a strict utilitarian assessment needs to consider (and opine) on the following questions:

* Does full lockdown, which it is agreed would reduce COVID deaths, increase or reduce net deaths over the same period in all cause mortality (poverty, depression, abuse, etc)?

* Does full lockdown increase or reduce net deaths over some longer period of time for all cause mortality?

Then we get to the really hard stuff, in two directions: first, cultural:

* Will full lockdown + contact tracing be implementable in the US / UK?

* If so, are the privacy and government centralization harms worth the benefit?

* If not, are the privacy, government centralization, and mortality related harms / benefits worth the tradeoff?

Second, in ‘softer’ terms:

* Will lockdown disadvantage certain members of society? (see the “K shaped recover” for lots on this.

* Are those harms short or long term, and are they worth the lifesaving that (may/will/definitely will/probably won’t) result?

Again, this is all presuming we agree to be utilitarian about this, (which I am not particularly inclined to be personally).

And, crucially, the answers to these questions is going to vary based on how much control a given government has right now, how much trust citizens have in their governments, how good the social safety net is, how protected / enforceable the borders surrounding the lockdown are — it’s impossible to get a global answer here.
You compare sending humans to the moon with a pandemic. Same with WW2. Staying out of WW2 didin't guarantee you safety, quite the opposite.

There are still many unknowns about the virus impact on health so telling people they should take a chance because it might not be worse than working remotely seems a bit inresponsible.

Governments should either impose lock-downs until they find a vaccine or develop ways to "live/work" with the virus(i.e strict measures, keep the virus under control etc), though it's hard if we can't/don't even want to wear a facemask and commander in chief claims the virus is a hoax.
It's a huge mistake to think the choices are "lockdown" or nothing.

We should stop talking about "lockdowns", and possibly never should have thought that way. The question is over restrictions, WHAT restrictions should we have, what alterations to usual way of doing things.

For instance, do you know Sweden, all along and still now, was in fact prohibiting gatherings of over 50 people, with criminal penalties for violating? Schools for children over 16 were closed. Social distancing was encouraged. Sweden didn't actually do particularly well -- although they have done BETTER than the U.S. in deaths per 100k population. But however poorly or well they did, contrary to the narrative, they in fact made major changes to social life, and in the end may have controlled social distancing BETTER than the US! (through a combination of legal restrictions and voluntary compliance, compared to the U.S. piecemeal, ever-changing, lockdown-then-nothing low-compliance environment).

So it is definitely a problem to think that our choices are a total lockdown which can reduce all risks to zero (unsustainable and not actually POSSIBLE; quotes about "which grandparents are going to die" suggest that if we do things right it will be no grandparents, which is unfortunately not true) -- and doing virtually nothing except maybe some half-hearted mask-wearing, which will result in years of ongoing massive illnesses (including possibly long-lasting chronic illness) and deaths.

In fact, we have to figure out how to do restrictions RIGHT. restrictions that are sustainable for the long-haul (becuase in fact this is going to be something we're dealing with for years, there is no deus ex machina vaccine miracle that will put things back to how they were), and that optimize for minimal infection with maximal social life. (In normal life, I have trouble explaining what I mean by 'optimizing' like this, it's nice to be talking on HN in an engineering culture that will immediately understand what i mean).

The US doesn't seem any closer to being motivated to do that though. And I"m not sure this letter actually helps,this comes across as just another allegience in the "do everything or do nothing" weird public health culture wars, which are not serving us. (For instance, "Herd immunity" is mostly not a useful thing to be thinking about here, and mentioning it just seems like signaling a 'do nothing' allegiance or implying that intentionally increasing infection rates is somehow a good thing, which it is not, unless you like years of ongoing chronic illnesses and deaths).
Your monitor might have an audio out port. That's why my monitor is the default sound output when I have my Mac connected.

It doesn't sound like a Windows bug unless your monitor is actually incapable of outputting sound at all. In that case, I'd wager your monitor is advertising sound when it has none.

I'm not saying that Windows bugs don't exist (I've run into lots), but I'm guessing that this isn't a Windows bug.
"Paulette Altmaier, a former Cisco Systems vice president and philanthropist who criticized Santa Clara County’s slow reopening in a full-page newspaper ad in May, found it refreshing."

Honestly Im not sure I'm trust anyone who has the money to be placing full page ads in papers to be looking out for me.

Oh what do you know....after googling it it turns out this person is associated with The Federalist.
I'm not 100% convinced it's satire because I've run into people who think/act like this in regards to interviewing, on-boarding, and team building.

They're sociopaths.
Any service that timestamps uploads will do, github for example.
Yes, and have different goals, hence the politics.
> If you have visitors regularly, you should probably buy a house with that extra bedroom. It's an asset that you can sell and recoup virtually 100% of your investment later on. You can't sell all the hotel rooms you've previously rented.

if you're buying a house, it probably makes sense to get one more room than you typically need. like you say, it's likely that you recoup the cost at the end anyway. if you're renting, it's a little different. a decent hotel room is $100-200 a night in most cities. that's not cheap, but having one extra bedroom probably adds at least that much to your monthly rent.

I argued in a different post that a hotel room isn't necessarily a substitute for a spare room. it's a much less intimate way to entertain visitors. depending on the guest, that could be a pro or a con.
Should they have the freedom to decide they don't like my forum and kick me off?

Yes. Their infrastructure is still private property, and you're using it to provide your own service. Similarly, if you rent a shop space in a food plaza and start a car mechanic's garage there, the owner of the food plaza will kick you out.

That the government has a hard-on for monopolies doesn't change the fact that you're still building your service on private infrastructure.
You might consider that economic policies effect health decisions and people's mental wellbeing, and that in making such a consideration find that they are not orthogonal issues.
On the other hand, there's presumably a significant technical difference between police cars and mine-resistant vehicles created for military operations in the Middle East.
It's weird because I had never heard that Jay Bhattacharya was super political. But early on he designed a study with unethical participant recruitment, juked and terrible stats, to push a bad pre-print for a contrarian number on the death rate that has proven to be very very very wrong. And he went out into media and pushed his bad study, at a crucial time. That the Mercury News is publishing his words is a huge black eye both for Stanford and for the Mercury News. It's clear that his COVID work is not driven by science, but rather strange political beliefs that can not be justified by data. Shameful.
Tell you what, you can pay me your $10 out of the settlement check we'll all be getting over this.
To a large degree, this makes sense.

In the UK, 75% of deaths are people aged 75 and older. I'm not sure if its the same age profile in the US but I would think yes. Even here in the Bay Area, the death rate is about 0.5% for everyone below the age of 60. If we lock down those over 60, and let everyone else live with masks and social distancing, the infection rate may skyrocket but the hospitalization and death rates will plummet. This is basically what we are seeing globally now, where the infection rate is higher than in March but death rates are much lower. Granted, there were less tests being run so that makes things hard to compare.

Also, the bigger problem is those that need to take care of their parents who are in this age group. The infectiousness is so high that if the children get sick, the parents will definitely get sick. So this is the biggest quagmire, that entire families will become isolated to protect the parents. It's not a perfect solution but better on a percentage basis for the entire country than locking down everyone, even though the risk profiles are drastically different.
We are talking about police.
Why Agile Turns into Micromanagement–A Rant
Yes, that's the point - Sweden is a baseline for what happens with no lockdowns or school closures (but also few other sound counter-measures).

The US had lockdowns and fared much worse.

Taiwan had no lockdowns or school closures (but also has done some things that Sweden hasn't done, like isolate older populations) and has, so far, done better.
I am so torn, is this satire or not. It's like an amalgamation between really useful advice and the worst you can do in an interview.

What is this, I have to know!
Whether we "should" lock down or not is not even a scientific question. Science doesn't make normative prescriptions.
They criticized lockdowns as the primary means to control the virus. They didn't argue against the usefulness of lockdowns in themselves. However, lockdowns have significant impact on poor people getting poorer.

WHO envoy Dr. David Nabarro:

> "We in the World Health Organization do not advocate lockdowns as the primary means of control of this virus"

> "The only time we believe a lockdown is justified is to buy you time to reorganize, regroup, rebalance your resources, protect your health workers who are exhausted, but by and large, we’d rather not do it."

> "Lockdowns just have one consequence that you must never, ever belittle, and that is making poor people an awful lot poorer"

> "Just look at what’s happened to the tourism industry in the Caribbean, for example, or in the Pacific because people aren’t taking their holidays"

> "Look what’s happened to smallholder farmers all over the world. Look what’s happening to poverty levels. It seems that we may well have a doubling of world poverty by next year. We may well have at least a doubling of child malnutrition."
I'm on version 83.0.4103.116 which is 3 major versions behind. I am averse to upgrading because it's working for me and I'm concerned about 3 rounds of incompatible/breaking changes. I have no idea about the relative maturity of the two versions, how big the breaking changes are or if they're likely to affect me, or how much time has transpired between the two versions. With every "major release" of Chromium my wariness increases, until the only way you'll get me to upgrade is when I'm forced to upgrade my system.

How is this communicating clearly or being helpful to me? Does anyone know offhand what major version of Chromium/Firefox they're using? If it's just an incremental counter, then why do we need .0.4103.116?
Even Isaac Arthur did a video on the Navy's videos, and he's more open to this than you. Please give this a rest -
Yes because systemic racism means they have less chance of getting a good education, less chance of getting good careers, higher chances of ending up in prison and with a criminal record after a cop encounter, and in the end, a higher chance of having a life of crime. Including murder.

But I'm sure you have data to show that America is land of the free and equal...
Could you clarify your statements and provide references to the bad stats?

I'm not sure if you are accusing the Stanford doctors in the article of bad stats or those arguing against the doctors in the article.
> I am not okay with unqualified politicians making inaccurate claims about the virus, and prioritizing economic health in the absence of good governance.

This sounds a bit like you are raising the qualification barrier to participate in the debate, but only if that person disagrees with you.
> Sure enough, plenty of well-reasoned critiques exist from Jewish groups, Noam Chomsky (hardly an anti-Semite), Christopher Hitchens, and others.

Are these armchair critiques? Or are these people/groups putting in serious effort to change things? That indirectly indicates their priority for the issue for them.
I don't understand why people are still taking Sunetra Gupta seriously, Oxford or not. She predicted that half the UK population may have already had COVID-19, back in March. Even as late as May, the true figure was less than 7%.

I wrote about this in this post, which was discussed here on HN at the time:
https://rssdss.design.blog/2020/03/31/all-models-are-wrong-b...
This is obviously not meant literally, if that's what you're contesting.

If your argument is that we cannot remove the vector for viral spread, while technically true, we can have a large enough suppression of spread through isolation that the virus would not have enough human infections to propagate. Animal vectors are a different story, of course, and often are the impetus for larger human infections.
Interesting points to note:

1) This declaration was made at a conference on economics. That makes the motivations seem like they are economic in nature, not driven by medical motivations.

2) It isn't clear to me that these doctors are experts on coronavirus. Only one is mentioned as currently practicing. As I understand it, death isn't the only negative consequence associated with coronavirus. Their declaration seems to ignore this and only seems to be based on a meta-analysis of death rates.

3) We do not currently have a lockdown. We have some restrictions in place. Their declaration is not just against lockdowns, it's against gathering restrictions, masks, etc.
I could believe it. I ran a very poorly designed online telephone number directory for some years.

The number of people that thought I was their bank or phone provider and gladly typed in their details into the Comments box...

Then there's the (smaller group of) people that dug down enough to find my phone number that I put on a page when I first set it up. Took me a while to figure out how they got that.
> regular mailboxes which are everywhere

They are not as "everywhere" as you'd think though. The closest mailbox to my house, for example, is on an unremarkable parking lot in about a mile from my home, in geographical distance, and about two miles if you follow the roads. And I live in relatively dense suburb. If someone lives in a more rural setting, it could easily be further and harder to locate, especially if you aren't good with online searches (I would never think to go look for my closest mailbox in that specific location otherwise, there may be some logic in why it's there but I for sure don't know it). So if you have a location that you know is frequently visited by a lot of people (such as, e.g., church) it may make sense to place a collection point there to ensure you do not lose anyone.
Immunity is often a spectrum. Nothing is black and white in biology.
GMC’s electric Hummer will be first car with software built using Unreal Engine
> basically given up on non-linux server now

Where do you get this from? Microsoft has reported annual increases in Windows Server revenues for years. Does no one do research before posting about MS? Azure's market increased by supporting Linux, doesn't mean the Windows side suffered.

> do you think they wouldn't be EEE-ing?

Show me one example of EEE in the last 20 years. Go ahead, I'll wait.