Can other options like the adenovirus-based or J&J ones be expected to cover a broader spectrum of mutants?

(And why are so many people downvoting these questions? I'm genuinely curious, and I really tried not to offend any sensibilities, but did I say something wrong? Oh god why do people always hate me so much? Is it possible to say or do anything right anymore? Maybe it's time to quit social media...I'm out, y'all are cruel.)

It's just a shame that the makework mostly involves harassing people. You'd think we could find more productive things for people to do.

So I offered it as an explanation for why the FDA could be well-respected and reasonably functional, while the United States fails to address some acute public health issues.

Things could be much worse; at least they don't turn a blind eye when huge sums of money are not involved. It's still very rare for a drug's approval to be pushed through via fraud, and there are a lot of diseases that need treating. They have a solid track record, even now.

In some cases it seems like peoples' trust in those regulators may be fueled by nostalgia, but the FDA does seem like one of the few agencies that has retained some measure of independence.

Looking at what has happened in this nation's other industries and institutions, only one crippling decades-long medical crisis doesn't seem all that bad.

Alpha Centauri is prescient as ever on this subject:

>I plan to live forever, of course, but barring that I'd settle for a couple thousand years. Even five hundred would be pretty nice.

- CEO Nwabudike Morgan, Morganlink 3D-Vision Interview

Of course, we would surely need to expand to other planets before we got anywhere near a 500-year lifespan. We can't manage this planet's resources properly even with a 70-year one.

"Designed in Chennai and Winnipeg."

This part is interesting. I had always heard that there was some concern about the Bomb literally lighting the sky on fire, but it sounds like they did their due diligence.

Also, if you own a small business, there's a real chance that you'd rely on Facebook for a significant portion of your business, because without a presence on their platforms you had may as well not exist.

I would argue that people are accepting these terms under duress; "consent" is the wrong word.

The market believes that Facebook et al will be able to continue enforcing their will unilaterally, and that is good for the companies, so their stocks go up.

IMHO, don't sweat the IP stuff to much, until you start spending a lot of off-hours time on a serious project (website, incorporation, etc). If you don't have a specific business plan, don't sweat it.

That might be an unpopular opinion, because it probably would leave you vulnerable in most at-will employment contracts, but as long as you don't take anything with you when you leave, big companies are unlikely to aggressively enforce anything.

And this should go without saying, but leave on good terms. Do right by the people who you work with and don't leave them holding any bags. It's the right thing to do, and you might want their recommendations if things go belly-up. Plus, part of the reason why the company is unlikely to go after you on technicalities is that they want to hire creative people like you in the future.

Apparently it's not too common in the States, but our vocational school held tours for local students in the last years of primary school, and they had solid job placement rates for various trade fields. They also did summer programs for local kids.

The article points out that average income/employment outcomes are a bit lower for vocational students, but I like that they try to control for that by looking at things like admissions data.

IME there really is a certain sort of high-scool student who, compared to 4 years of classes, will get a lot more out of guided access to something like a garage, bakery, daycare, machine shop, etc. The vocational school still taught ordinary classes, but on a part-time basis with the student's concentration.

Plus, adventurous locals could sometimes get cheap services. Want to have some fun? Tell your passengers that your car's oil was just changed by a 16-year-old student, while you're on the highway.

But put simply, I think that we need to make it highly illegal to use information asymmetry to take advantage of people at a large scale.

People need legal protection against the natural "just make it work already" instinct that makes us blindly accept TOS terms and follow dark patterns. It would be laughable to argue that a significant portion of users actually understands what they are agreeing to.

I guess it makes sense; the RISC-V crowd might possibly skew towards early adoption over backwards-compatibility.

It would be really cool to see some implementations from places like SiFive/GigaDevice/etc. Imagine how easy driver support could be if everyone used and contributed to the same open IPs...

The problem was that the Capitol was invaded while the Senate was in session, which made a bunch of lawmakers feel personally threatened. And when rich politically-connected people fear for their own safety, you'd better watch out.

Anyways, protests attack cops and cops attack protests in the US...oh, every few months? Such is life.

I hope that mobile computing follows the path of desktop computing, and we end up with more viable small-device OS options.

>Don't put your faith in revolutions. They always come around again. That's why they're called revolutions.

What happened to Georges Danton, the thunderous voice of the early French Revolution? How about Toussaint L'ouverture, avenger of the New World? Even Simon Bolivar and Manuela Saenz left behind a fractious group of nation-states.

The US is kind of an aberration in that regard, but even Ben Franklin cautioned that "the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

The funny thing is, if you extend that metaphor to big tech companies like FAANGs, then they would be the early revolutionaries who are about to get devoured. And that metaphor would fall apart quickly, because those companies have never professed to be revolutionary harbingers of a new and improved world.

How do you reconcile that belief with the fact that Tesla's embedded developers did not understand the extremely simple concept of write endurance?

The NHTSA opened an investigation into premature HUD failures because they prevented the backup cameras from working. But the fact of the matter is, the company used a small partition of internal Tegra Flash to store rapidly-refreshing log data. And you are trusting these devs with your life when you enable autopilot.

You're also entrusting my life, and those of my family, to them. But we'll gloss over that, because it's expensive not to.

You'll still be able to find the old article on archive.org et al, but what a paper publishes today should reflect what it stands for today. If the paper was wrong or unfair, what is wrong with modifying or removing the coverage which is served today? Is that really worse than printing a "correction" paragraph at the end of the original article?

Maybe publishers could implement a sort of "timeline" feature which shows how the organization's understanding of an event changed over time. But today, I can't see anything wrong with a newspaper accepting petitions to modify outdated coverage.

* Very low pay.

* Good benefits in a nation with poor safety nets.

* Tuition waivers along the lines of $10-100K/year.

* When the Dr. says jump, you ask how high.

If you view education as an investment, it isn't necessarily bad compared to an ordinary job. But it's kind of like a FAANG company; your experience depends on who you report to.

But graduate schooling is still a big opportunity cost, and not to go all Mark Twain, but sometimes that can get in the way of your education.