The part I found non-obvious is how to snapshot the unbounded vectors of immutable registers, which is a requirement for any real system. But I never gave it a whole lot of thought either.
To snapshot, I either need to find an epoch such that no older epoch could ever have relevant information for the current node, or I need the nodes to agree on a snapshot. Both seem complicated.
Only an idiot would design a device to assume no packet loss, unless they were _also_ allowed to design the network. If you buy such a device and put it on a janky power network, then you have only yourself to blame.
Standards decisions should never be made to accommodate designers that want to assume there's effectively no packet loss.
Some degree of error correction is totally reasonable, but your first point is irrelevant to discussion.
I can't believe you had to pay a fine to comply with the government's own laws. No reasonable person would expect an operation to make no mistakes here.
How big were the fines? Were they ever challenged in court?
Part of 'complying with the governments own laws' is not making bogus calls. He said himself it happened more than once a month. There's a real cost to dispatching those fire trucks.
The fine is pretty standard practice to discourage repeated nuisance calls. Resources are not infinite and if time is spent on a nuisance call when a real call is delayed, you end up with avoidable injuries and even deaths.
So much racism for treating functions as black boxes. That's what you're supposed to do: treat functions as black boxes, not express casual racism on hacker news.
Alternative point of view: functions is just a performance boost. You still have to understand what and how they do to use them correctly. Treating them as "black box" leads to shitty outcomes.
Coincidentally, there seems to be quite a lot of overlap with cultural background and one or another PoV on functions.
He's suggesting we pay them better to make up for depriving them of vehicles private citizens can use. It's not unreasonable to strip them of those vehicles to prevent insider trading. It's not unreasonable to compensate them for losing those vehicles.
If you don't test a patient that's positive and put them with other patients and unprotected health personnel you'll infect others and significantly weaken the hospital's ability to treat patients. If you don't test a patient that's negative and put them with covid patients they risk getting infected, taking up an extra ICU spot, and might die. Would you want one of your loved ones in that position?
What would change in public policy with more randomized tests?
Do you know what's even worse for the hospital's ability to treat patients? If the city continues to operate normally until the number of cases is so large that it's obvious the outbreak is unmanageable even without testing.
Randomized tests would have told policy makes exactly how fast this spreads, even in Western cities. Lockdowns would have happened earlier. The total number of infected would be 1-2 orders of magnitude lower. Hospitals would have been better off.
>Would you want one of your loved ones in that position?
I wouldn't want one of my loved ones to die because my civilization was so short-sighted that it let a disease run rampant. Your appeal to emotion is garbage, and it doesn't even make sense, since all of our chances would be better if we'd known what was going on.
A full nationwide shut down without waiting for individual states to shockingly have the same issues as every other state was one possibility.
By comparison many ill people are currently being told to stay home until they have difficulty breathing, making tests have minimal clinical value. Especially as the risk of false negatives are significant.
* PCR tests to check if you are carrier of the virus right now. That's what you do with patients and personnel.
* Anti-body tests to gauge the number of people having been exposed to the virus in the past.
It takes a couple of days to develop anti-bodies so you don't want to use that one for the first use-case. And you can have anti-bodies without carrying the virus. (Well, it depends on the type of antibodies)
If you know the exposure in the general public, we would better know the real mortality, how far we are with herd-immunity, and if general quarantines do make sense, or it might be sensible to be more selective.
Hard to make this decisions in smaller contacts when you are potentially endanger real patients needing care right now Vs future "less dead" estimations.
Health systems deal with scarcity on a daily basis. There's no room for the emotional hand-wringing you're describing. Moving scarce resources from diagnosis patients to studying the population during a pandemic will be one event in a causal chain that results in deaths. It also prevents the outbreak from spreading beyond control.
Several orders of magnitude more people have been killed by uninformed policy than would have been killed by redirecting a portion of tests. What kind of MONSTER chooses for so many more people to die?!?
At this point do we even need to test most of the serious cases. if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, coughs like a duck, it's a duck. Didn't China start counting cases based on CT scans at one point too?
Preponderance of evidence is the bar that must be met. But the plaintiff must provide the evidence to the courts. The discovery process makes some of the defendant's records available to the plaintiff, in case there is relevant evidence.
But if the plaintiff produces no evidence, Amazon does not need to make a defense. Thus OP is correct.
> But the plaintiff must provide the evidence to the courts
Sure, but any evidence which makes an accusation more likely than in the absence of that evidence suffices to meet preponderance of the evidence in the absence of any contrary evidence. The fact of the labor organizing, the fact of the firing, and their temporal relationship are, together, evidence for retaliation.
Yes, exactly. If the only evidence presented demonstrates that the plaintiff was organizing, that Amazon learned that he was organizing, and after that point Amazon fired the plaintiff they would very likely have met a preponderance of evidence burden. It sounds like none of those facts are even in dispute.
So, Amazon will very likely need to make the case (and Amazon will need to present the evidence to support it), that he was actually fired for violating the company mandated quarantine.
The actual evidentiary fight will probably be over whether that quarantine was a bona fide quarantine, or a pretextual one. But who has the burden to present that evidence will very much depend on who feels like they're losing the case. Probably both of them will need to present evidence to support their position.
Fallacious. A headache is evidence of a brain tumor, but there's not a 51% chance you have a brain tumor. You've satisfied some necessary conditions for retaliatory action, but haven't converted that into a probability.
You have a reasonable indication, but no preponderance of evidence. You probably have enough for discovery.
If the reproduction rate is 10, and you catch 70% of cases, then the effective reproduction rate will be closer to 3. Since even the highest estimates of the basic reproduction number are only about 4, a test that's 75% accurate means an effective reproduction rate closer to 1.
Are you aware of the difference between 4^x and 1^x?
Are you aware that the sensitivity quoted was mostly in symptomatic and hospitalized patients and not those in the very earliest stages who could also be shedding less virus?
Are you aware that each false negative can infect N others, some of whom might have also been previously tested, and also be greenlit to deal with high-risk populations like nursing homes?
Are you aware that your 4^x vs 1^x comparison assumes that in that chain everyone is tested, which is not even close to the case now.
Are you aware that the test can be improved by training medical personnel on sampling technique?
Are you aware that tests will, as a general rule, improve?
Are you aware that the majority of people understand the difference between 70% and 100% accurate?
Are you aware that public policy was affected by poor data on the spread?
Are you aware that it's far easier to successfully test [nearly] everyone in the chain when the number of cases is small, like it would have been when this test was initially available?
The _only_ way this can be contained is through massive lockdowns. If tests were performed _as soon as possible_, then there's a good chance we could have done a good job containing it through contact tracing. Even if that weren't the case, it would have given our medical system several extra weeks to prepare for the case load. It would have given our politicians better data to enact policies.
So after you try to belittle me about not understanding 4^x vs 1^x, you are now talking about future efforts, hopes how an entire medical community can be retrained, etc. Let's stay focused on the real world and not some hypothetical past where we were like South Korea. None of your comments apply to a 1^x spread in the current system since we aren't testing many people, and in hot spots, we aren't testing hardly anyone outside those in hospitals.
Here's where we agree. We agree that the only way this can be contained is massive lockdowns, and I believe this particularly true in the face of unreliable and unavailable testing. I also think it has to be coordinated across the country to prevent constant reseeding. We agree that testing everyone would've been good, particularly in the containment phase, but that ship has sailed.
My original point is that under the current system where we are occasionally testing the public at large, and also using swab RT-PCR just after suspected infected contact (way before symptoms like Pence, etc), the variable sensitivity is troubling.
It's like talking to a brick wall. Medical technology is approximately monotonically increasing, so it's absurd to think the test we cobble together in the first month won't be improved upon. The CDC FUCKED UP. I expect careers to be finished. I want a criminal investigation, just in case of corruption, and I hope some people lose their license.
But even in the current environment, testing is important. It guides public policy, and it helps doctors triage patients in serious condition. It still helps to limit the spread, and will do so even more when testing overtakes the infection rate (aided by lockdowns). If testing improves, then it could cut weeks off a global lockdown, because the long tail will die that much faster.
Not everyone is a neckbeard with a programming job who can live in a basement for two weeks without a single human contact, so anything that helps extinguish this disease helps. Now if you'll excuse me, I should go shave.
Yes, it certainly is. Did I ever say we shouldn't test? Did I ever argue testing couldn't be improved? Suggest you argue points that were actually put forth instead of using straw men arguments. Re-read the last line of my original post. I'm all in favor of trying to find positive cases.
Still wrong. Reread the second to last line of your original post.
>There's a reason why screening tests need to be highly accurate.
They don't. That's the point. It doesn't need to be 99.9% accurate unless the disease is so aggressive that you're all dead anyway.
There's the contention. The goal is exponential decay, and the only scalable method is to reduce the reproduction rate. Even if you don't drop below 1, a smaller exponential still grows exponentially slower.
Screening tests need to be highly accurate OR you need to be fully aware and manage the fallout from false negatives, which is the point I'm making. First, screening tests have costs, that's why many diseases don't have screening tests. It's what's drummed into us in medical school. Sometimes the medical community backs away from a screening test like has been done in many areas with prostate exams. The cost/benefit isn't worth it. One cost in the COVID case is use of PPE, health care worker time, and test availability hence why CA is backing away from broad testing to triage tests to in-hospital use. Another cost is the possible grouping of symptomatic patients together as they wait for tests. Sure, if rollout can be perfect this isn't a problem, but medicine is about what happens in the real world where delivery is not perfect. By the way, NYC and CA medical community is saying the cost/benefit isn't good enough for broad COVID screening at this time. I'm sure you know better because you know the math of disease spread and are completely unable to grok other reasons why'd they do that.
Second and less talked about, there are consequences of a false negative population which is NOT handled appropriately -- like not letting people know if they test negative they STILL should stay away from high-risk population or take precautions like you still could be infected. That directive has been circulated a little but most people I've seen don't know that. The news reporters don't ask Pence about serial tests. They seem satisfied he had one negative test.
Once again, and I don't know how many times I have to say this, I'm not against widespread testing of the current RT-PCR swab, particularly if we had lots of tests, didn't have PPE shortages in the area, and guidance was given to all those receiving results. Your contention that accuracy doesn't matter is incorrect. It matters because false negatives matter and it's great to do testing to decrease the spread, which is pretty obvious, but you absolutely need additional management depending on accuracy. Like not setting the standard of working with high-risk patients as a single negative test. They need to be tested serially and hopefully get a more accurate test for nursing home workers in future. Like not assuming Pence isn't spreading disease because of a single negative test. He could be one of the many asymptomatic infected. This has been my point for this entire thread. I'll leave you to argue something different.
Creating perfect types for every single input is also an anti-pattern. Most of our needs fall somewhere between "works pretty well" and "formally verified". Riding herd on the type system to prove ever more invariants about your system is usually a waste of time.
It's reasonable to put a little more effort into it along API lines. But there's a reason that the compiler doesn't make it easy to define an integer type that can hold values between -7 and 923091.
I've implemented the consensus part of Paxos in 10 minutes. But it's a toy. It's totally useless without the other stuff.