360walk

If TLS version support was materially affecting your client’s ability to integrate with your products’ APIs then the Product Manager should have picked this up and worked with the development team on a way to remove this friction.

I can think of a bunch of different ways of solving this that would take a few days to build out.

I think generalists make good Product Managers. Getting a "good" understanding of all the business functions (tech, analytics, ux/design, sales, legal & regulatory etc) is fundamental to being successful in the role and naturally fits the type of mindset that you describe.

Table 2 in Link [1] shows an incidence rate for young males of 10.69 not 2.13?

For the sake of factual accuracy, the vaccine being “completely safe” for children should be rephrased “short term side effects outweighed by risks associated with the disease; medium and long term cost/benefit unknown.”

I think it is necessary for the crashes to occur, to gather the data required to re-train the auto-pilot. We as a society need to decide whether we want to pay this cost of technological advancement.

I would guess it's because your insurance pays someone's medical bills if you hit them in the US, which can be >>> the cost of replacing a car even if it's a relatively minor injury.

R0 of an infection is the expected number of cases directly generated by one case in a population where all individuals are susceptible to infection.

We are nowhere near all people in a population being susceptible to infection with the vaccine rollout (and the people that are susceptible, it's their choice.)

As an economist, what do you think of the Amazon Antitrust Paradox?

https://www.yalelawjournal.org/note/amazons-antitrust-parado...

> The current framework in antitrust fails to register certain forms of anticompetitive harm and therefore is unequipped to promote real competition—a shortcoming that is illuminated and amplified in the context of online platforms and data-driven markets. This failure stems both from assumptions embedded in the Chicago School framework and from the way this framework assesses competition.

> Notably, the present approach fails even if one believes that antitrust should promote only consumer interests. Critically, consumer interests include not only cost but also product quality, variety, and innovation. Protecting these long-term interests requires a much thicker conception of “consumer welfare” than what guides the current approach. But more importantly, the undue focus on consumer welfare is misguided. It betrays legislative history, which reveals that Congress passed antitrust laws to promote a host of political economic ends—including our interests as workers, producers, entrepreneurs, and citizens. It also mistakenly supplants a concern about process and structure (i.e., whether power is sufficiently distributed to keep markets competitive) with a calculation regarding outcome (i.e., whether consumers are materially better off).

> Antitrust law and competition policy should promote not welfare but competitive markets. By refocusing attention back on process and structure, this approach would be faithful to the legislative history of major antitrust laws. It would also promote actual competition—unlike the present framework, which is overseeing concentrations of power that risk precluding real competition.

Quoting Bertrand Russell's "Free Thought and Official Propaganda" from the 1920s:

>Legal penalties are, however, in the modern world, the least of the obstacles to freedom of thoughts. The two great obstacles are economic penalties and distortion of evidence. It is clear that thought is not free if the profession of certain opinions makes it impossible to earn a living.

Regarding the question about how the vaccine could protect against severe but not mild infection, I think they answer that here:

> Antibodies can prevent infection, your T cell-responses ensure that those antibodies keep doing their job and they kick in after you're infected OR oh my goodness stop the presses- VACCINATED (how about them apples). In other words, while robust T-cells responses cannot protect you from a mild or moderate infection sometimes (think cough, sniffles, etc.) they can however proliferate rapidly and prevent the build up of viral load. Psst- you want this to be LOW. VL drives disease severity.

Even R>1 has a maximum in future new infections because R gradually declines over time as more people have had the disease and have some form of protection.

The "if you're using good form" is a pretty huge caveat. It's only natural for form to suffer as you try and push yourself harder, but there are not many exercises where bad form so consistently leads to such debilitating injuries such as slipped disks.

This is anecdotal evidence I know, but I can think of two friends that have gotten slipped disks from doing deadlifts in 2019, and this was during personal training sessions from "ex-Olympians" that cost $100s an hour.

Here is an interesting study on NYTimes and fake news:

https://www.cjr.org/analysis/fake-news-media-election-trump....

It makes the case that:

1) Adults in America saw hardly any fake news stories (on average one per person, massively dwarfed by real news and political ads) 2) Main Stream Media were far more "to blame", focusing on scandal instead of policy. They give an example of the NY times ran more front page stories on Hillary's emails in 10 days, than they ever ran on Trump/Hillary policy comparisons.

He addresses both of those in the article:

Schizophyllum:

Some species have many hundreds of these ‘mating types’, and newspapers often report research into this phenomenon under headlines such as: ‘Scientists discover species with hundreds of sexes!’ But, formally, biologists refer to these as ‘mating types’, and reserve the term ‘sexes’ for gametes that are different in size and structure. Why distinguish between these two phenomena? One reason is that the evolution of anisogamy – gametes that differ in size and structure – explains the later evolution of sex chromosomes, sex-associated physical characteristics and much more. But the existence of mating types doesn’t have these dramatic knock-on evolutionary effects.

Intersex:

Many people assume that if there are only two sexes, that means everyone must fall into one of them. But the biological definition of sex doesn’t imply that at all. As well as simultaneous hermaphrodites, which are both male and female, sequential hermaphrodites are first one sex and then the other. There are also individual organisms that are neither male nor female. The biological definition of sex is not based on an essential quality that every organism is born with, but on two distinct strategies that organisms use to propagate their genes. They are not born with the ability to use these strategies – they acquire that ability as they grow up, a process which produces endless variation between individuals. The biology of sex tries to classify and explain these many systems for combining DNA to make new organisms. That can be done without assigning every individual to a sex, and we will see that trying to do so quickly leads to asking questions that have no biological meaning.

From what I can see using a very basic understanding of superconductivity, in that patent superconductivity is achieved by:

1) Taking a wire, and mechanically inducing a wave of lattice vibrations 2) Firing a pulse of electricity down the wire to "ride the wave" of superconductivity produced

whereas normal superconductors (including this one) produce superconductivity because the first positively charged electrons in a wave of current "pulls up" the negatively charged lattice behind it as it passes over creating a wave that attracts the second wave of electrons traveling behind (which in turn does the same to the third.)