I just feel to share it if it may help someone to build a timeline. And, as I have said in another comment, Osaka has many many Chinese visitors and I was in a very busy airport. I doubt that it took a lot of time to jump from China to other Asian countries.

But, of course, it could have been an equivalent disease with the same symptoms: fever, mental-fog, sore-throat.

It is just the timing, the fact that Osaka is visited by many Chinese nationals and the feeling was so similar that makes me quite sure that it was covid-19.

I got vaccinated, even during the second infection I felt extremely tired and slightly confused, I want to minimize as much as possible the risk of repeating again.

update: For all the down-votes. Time will say. But "A new study shows that first cases of coronavirus infections could have appeared in China between October and mid-November 2019". It fits with my experience. https://www.dw.com/en/covid-study-cases-spread-in-china-earl...

update 2: I arrived to Osaka Airport (KIX) on 9th November, I had symptoms 3 days later.

update 3: Stop down-voting the people that says that it is impossible. It may be the case, I am just sharing my personal experience in case it clicks somewhere. I can be wrong and it could have been a virus with very similar symptoms. I didn't wanted to start a war of up votes and down votes, that adds nothing to the discussion.

It's just polite to write the meaning of acronyms.

Maybe you would like to be able to shit on the street, but there are laws against it because it would be unhealthy and probably also because people would find it "indecent". I know that not be able to shit in the street limits your freedom and forces you to be on the non-shiters team. But, I think that it is for the good of society.

Maybe vaccination is different, and then we can discuss that. But just to say that you do not want to live in a society with rules seems quite extreme.

And sorry for the shitty example, but I was trying to find something not yet politicized.

That sounds completely alien to my experience. I go on vacation around 2 months a year. I work only the stipulated hours. And I have a great job, with great conditions, working with amazing people, learning things and having fun.

This kind of mindset and approach to life gives me a peace of mind that allows me to have meaningful discussions, to mediate in disagreements and to not be too invested so I can easily adapt to new circumstances. Working "harder" just creates a tunnel vision, maybe is ok if your job is to sit in a chair and do nothing. But for any job that requires mind or body to be in shape, you need vacations and take it easy to perform at top capacity.

On the other side if it really as you say and everything is about competition, then investing so much in just your job is going to make you lose at the rest of non-work competitions in live. But, I do not think that this is true.

This is a very self-centered view of the universe. No, you are not important nor you need to be.

I do my job, if I leave someone else is going to be hired to do it. That is how it works.

If you are "important" then you should be receiving a share of the profits, not a salary. A salary just means that you can be replaced, no matter how high it is.

I guess that it is a cultural thing, that many people have been convinced to work extra hours, to not take vacations, to slave away their lives for a sense of "self importance".

I get a fantastic salary, I enjoy my work, but I am not important. It is difficult to replace me, it took 2 years to get another person in my position. But, if I tomorrow leave, the company will manage. I bring value, but I am not the center of the universe. I bring value, but I am not irreplaceable. I bring value, but I have to take (by law) vacations and the company will continue running without me.

All jobs in a company bring value and the employees needs to be respected for that. It does not matter if you have a low-paid low-skilled job, you are still being paid because you bring value and you should be respected for it. And you should be able to go on vacations, because the goal of all this capitalist thing is to make our lives better, to be slaves we do not need capitalism. If in your society low-paid low-skill workers cannot take vacations, then you are failing at bringing well-being, health, and meaning to the members of your society. And for what? To produce another plastic shit that will be polluting the ocean in one month? To show more ads to people that cannot afford to buy more shit?

I guess that this is a difference in society values. But for me the question "are you really important" should be answered as "yes, because I have friends, family, children, hobbies, etc." and what you produce is only a small part of that value.

I doubt that copyright existed in the Stone age, so it's public domain.

> they weren't sure it was good enough? A bit of self-conciousness on how my stick figures are a lot less realistic than Bob's paintings in his cave?

It could have been a curse, a pay to get better hunting that some other people in the tribe or even a new religion. I agree that is difficult to say, I hope that future discoveries get more light into this drawings.

This seems wrong to me. Most society rules have a reason to exist. Maybe, in the past century a few of that rules have become obsolete. But humanity is excellent at creating rules that makes things good enough to keep going.

There is nothing that makes a society change its rules like a change on the environment.

> We should not be surprised that Western societies are showing signs of mass psychosis.

The "everything is going to hell" theory. And, as often happens, without any proof or care to explain.

> More generally, locked in, locked down, and locked out, the population’s confinement within the highly controlled environment of the internet is driving them crazy.

*Them. I guess that the author is immune to this effect.

I love festivals, and they make for a great opportunity to meet people and create community. Also, festivals are an opportunity for a community to present respect to folklore heroes and their moral values, and to laugh at villain and their lack thereof. Festivals are not to for "blow off steam".

The more heterogeneous a system is the better it scales. But errors spread fast as most of the system depends on a very small set of services.

When I was a kid, if one of the neighborhood shops had to close the rest were open. Only a power outage would make many shops stop operating, but many others will work on only-cash and it would be a minor inconvenience.

But this neighborhood shops could not operate at international level, nor make its owner the richest person on Earth.

In a not so distant future we are going to have to choose between mega-corporations that can crash the economy or smaller companies that are subject to the evolution pressure of capitalism.

I hope that taxation is increased globally. That would be the equivalent of reducing the amount of oxygen in the atmosphere. And as gigantic animals cannot live in a less oxygen-rich Earth, big corporations cannot live without tax-cuts and special deals with city governments.

It is possible that there are other explanations. Older developers may want better salaries, better working conditions, be harder to manipulate, etc.

Good leadership is going to hire people that fits in the culture of the company and have the needed skills. Whenever the candidate is younger or older does not matter.

Bad leadership wants cheap employees that obey orders and don't challenge authority. Younger, more inexperienced developers will fit this category, even if they are technically skilled.

This is as good a theory that any other one to explain the fact that recruiters want younger developers.

Interesting study. Good to make clear that this does not apply to older children. Older children will verify any surprising claims. On the other hand they suffer, like adults, of confirmation bias. If the information fits their expectation they will not check is veracity. I guess that confirmation bias is just an efficient way of learning about the world, do not waste time if things seem to fit your current understanding of the world.

That is not how the world works. The fact that most people is not in the history books does not mean that they were not important.

> History is for the meaningful, not the things that wouldn't even make the minor footnotes.

But, minor footnotes have changed the history of empires. A disease that moves to one person to another, and one traveler, can spread it around changing the live of hundreds, millions a few generations later, all humanity after a few centuries.

That we do not have the capacity to understand the complexity of all human interactions does not mean that it is not important. History is presented as the act of a few chosen individuals because history is told to promote national feelings, and because humans relate easily to histories of families and power.

First, you will need to give examples of what kind of movies you find "creative" that were done in the past and there is no current equivalent for that level of creativity.

"Jojo Rabbit", "Parasite", "Blade Runner 2049", "Coco", "Lady Bird", "Arrival", "The Nice Guys", ... that is the past 5 years with one almost missing because the pandemic. Is any of that any good for you?

What do you think that it was so creative in the past and has no comparation today?

> According to the law, a person isn’t entitled to a patent if the claimed invention already existed when the application was filed or would have been obvious to someone skilled in the relevant technology area.

This usually is completely overlook in patents. So, patents are ridiculous, they overlap and create a legal minefield for any small developer. Patent trolls exist because the patent system is so easily exploitable.

I am not against the concept of patents, I see the value of allowing some corporation to regain invested money. But, it needs to be for real inventions that took time and effort to develop thru costly processes. Meanwhile things like "one-click buying, is the technique of allowing customers to make purchases with the payment information needed to complete the purchase having been entered by the user previously" are accepted. Patents are a useless joke, at least in the software industry. And its only goal is to increase the power of already monopolistic corporations.

If a 10 minutes summary is enough so it is not worth to see your movie, maybe the problem of your movie is not the 10 minute summary.

Maybe we should be able to sue movie makers if the movie quality is not up to pair with the trailer. False advertisement is not legal, even in Japan. That way people would not need to look to 10 minutes summaries to know if watching a movie is going to be a waste of money and time.

That is not true. I pay money, I get a product I want. That is a win-win situation.

I see TV and the TV channel shows ads is a win-win situation.

I see YouTube and YouTube records who I am, where I live, my age, my relationship status, my political views.... to watch TV for free seems a very bad exchange.

I am not against the advertisement industry, but in its current form in conjunction with tech companies it is damaging society in very real, very harmful ways.

Collecting data might be sensible ... for corporations. But, it is rarely for the consumer. That is why it is so hard to ask.

"Can I do this thing that you do not understand but probably have the feeling that is only going to be bad for you?". That is a hard question to ask, that is why the question is hidden behind weird concepts, lists of consent checkbox, or other dark-pattern mechanisms.

Collecting data might be sensible.. but only for one side of the deal. Data collection is a clear WIN-LOSE situation, a situation that is only accepted because there is an unsymmetrical amount of power in the relationship.

The article is very good at explaining the basic fact. Prices depend on demand. It does not matter how bad the product is, or how useless it is. If demand increases, price increases accordingly.

The stock market is a "market" and behaves as such. Something that should be obvious, but we miss some times in our arguments.