Has Tulsa agreed to look for the mass graves of its citizens killed in the race massacre yet? Seems like that might deter the level of "diversity" the city is looking for.
I am in no way saying you are doing this, comment is for the thread as well as you.
As others have mentioned in this discussion, I think giving the child both a sense and actual control over what they work on is one of the keys.
Children want to please their parents, so they might work on things that they think you would like. They are extremely good at reading people even if other actions seem uncoordinated. It is best to listen, in all senses of the word, to child and find out what they really like. Once you have found that, you have to make enough space for it to bloom.
One example for me was in getting my very adventurous athletic child to ride a scooter and a bike. I thought she would be one of those badass three year olds skating around with the big kids. She didn't really take to it, I tried to push it a little bit and I found myself a little deflated when said she didn't like it.
I sat back and figured out that I wanted it, and it wasn't fair for me to put that on to her. A smile isn't always a smile and encouragement is always what it seems. i backed off, would ask about it once in awhile but didn't pressure her again.
About 6 months ago she asked to ride the bike again, that she really wanted to learn. I told her she is gonna crash, it might hurt, but that anyone can do it. In 5 days of two 20-30 minute sessions a day, she was starting, stopping and turning all on her own. She was so excited to have learned it, I could see the accomplishment on her whole being.
Humans are wonderful all purpose devices, the spark that guides us the leads to our differentiation is the interest reward function. Capabilities are one thing, but interest, genuine interest is where the magic lies. The most interesting people are to me are the ones that ask the best questions, or give the answer you weren't expecting.
Our job as parents, I believe is to be a social and metacognitive mirror so that everyone can get a different perspective to explore and understand the world.
The 3DS, in particular the "New" models, I think are really recommended to pick up cheap. They are well built devices that are supremely hackable with access to lots of fun games.
The 3DS library is good despite somewhat lacking in diversity. But the 3DS also has native compatibility with the entire excellent DS library, and after hacking it can also run the entire great GBA library without emulation (like Matroshka dolls, the 3DS hardware includes the complete DSi hardware which in turn includes GBA hardware, and it has firmware support to access them both).
The old models emulate a lot of 8 and 16 bit consoles well, whereas the New models have nearly complete compatibility for 8 and 16 bit consoles and additionally can emulate some Playstation 1. Moreover, hacking the 3DS has become even more accessible due to recent newly found exploits. Still getting a lot of fun out of mine.
Related to the origin hypotheses, the hypothesis of zoonotic outbreak from a wet market in mid-Dec no longer seems as relevant. It was first laid out in a widely disseminated paper in The Lancet [1, see Figure 1B], but since then retrospective wastewater analyses from Italy[2], Spain[3], Brazil and others[4] have found it was circulating much earlier.
"The Italian National Institute of Health looked at 40 sewage samples collected from wastewater treatment plants in northern Italy between October 2019 and February 2020. An analysis released on Thursday said samples taken in Milan and Turin on Dec. 18 showed the presence of the SARS-Cov-2 virus." [2]
and
"Most COVID-19 cases show mild influenza-like symptoms (14) and it has been suggested that some uncharacterized influenza cases may have masked COVID-19 cases in the 2019-2020 season (11). This possibility prompted us to analyze some archival WWTP samples from January 2018 to December 2019 (Figure 2). All samples came out to be negative for the presence of SARS-CoV-2 genomes with the exception of March 12, 2019, in which both IP2 and IP4 target assays were positive. This striking finding indicates circulation of the virus in Barcelona long before the report of any COVID-19 case worldwide." [3]
> If the client doesn't trust the server, the crypto protocol is a little irrelevant.
What? No. The protocol is the only thing that is relevant. Peers don't generally trust each other a priori at all. They trust the protocol. If they can authenticate each other within the bounds of the protocol then they trust each other. If one party no has reason to distrust a certain protocol, then it should not be used as a basis for establishing trust. If the two peers can't agree on a protocol: stalemate. If I compromise your server and only serve weak protocols a responsible client won't authenticate me whereas a vulnerable client would take my word that my protocol is secure.
Make sure you keep a HEPA filter running so you don’t get mushroom lung from the spores. If you’re growing in the hundreds of pounds per week I wouldn’t even go into that room without full PPE.
I can appreciate that, there’s just been enough confusion around the meaning of elimination that I feel a lot of people will just assume we’re done with it.
I don’t think the headline should be changed unless the article title changes, more just that if their goal is science communication I think they’ve done a poor job of it.
“New Zealand on the cusp of Covid-19 Elimination” might be a better term.
Also, our government hasn’t specified what threshold would be considered elimination so the latter part of that definition isn’t super helpful.
Yeah, that is possible but my point is that it sorta breaks how people are used to join these kinds of meetings. The back and forth required is not the expectation most people have.
If you have more people then you'd need to do this once per person, (after that they can gossip the SDP over data channels to find the other participants).
Usual flow:
1. I and other people go to meet.example/DiscussImportantStuff
Your proposed flow:
1. I go to meet.example/DiscussImportantStuff (and it generates my sdp in the background and appends it to URL)
2. I send meet.example/DiscussImportantStuff#MySDPHere to my friend
3. He goes to meet.example/DiscussImportantStuff#MySDPHere (and it generates an answer SDP and replaces it to URL)
4. He sends me back meet.example/DiscussImportantStuff#FriendsSDPHere
5. I go to that link and we are connected.
Repeat steps 2-5 for each participant.
Considering how little technical complexity is saved and that you still need to have some sort of communication channel set up I don't think the proposed flow is worth it.
One of the hardest parts of leading a startup (or any company really) in a major downturn is managing your employees expectations for their career growth. Many of them will have joined a rapidly growing company - ones with the most rapid career path opportunities - only to see the rug pulled out.
Imagine joining a company as a software engineer with expectations of becoming a lead and then a manager?
Imagine joining as a manager and expecting to grow your team from 5->50?
Managing these expectations as an executive and coaching your team through the crisis is a vastly underappreciated skill. We focus too often on what your equity will be worth as a means of motivation.
Convincing a talented engineer whose equity went from $1m->zero overnight that all it takes is 'grit' to make through to the other side, that's when experienced management pays off.
I can see why you might not want to, though. App ELBs charge by usage and can get somewhat expensive (like running another EC2 instance or two). They can also have cold-start performance issues in specific circumstances (traffic spikes).
Sorry, but it's very easy to verify that these claims are crap by replicating their study, i.e. doing a simple blast search of the insert sequence against the virus database. Here's the result of the first insert: https://blast.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Blast.cgi?CMD=Get&RID=398N4CS...
Although, there are some hits against HIV, there are also equally matching hits against bacteriophages; viruses that only target bacterias, they are completely unrelated to any viruses that target humans and animals.
Furthermore, the E value is around 170, that means that matches are statistically completely insignificant, meaning they happened by chance only. Such a high E value corresponds to a p-value of very, very close to 1 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/BLAST/tutorial/Altschul-1.html).
These guys that published such a paper are either completely clueless or nefarious in trying to stir up conspiracy theories.
You know that, I know that, and we can be happy that we have the experience to know what the right tool for this job would be by sizing up and describing the characteristics of the problem like you just did. But those with less experience may not be able to do that unless shown stuff like this in practice.
Some may think this problem requires MapReduce. The quote from the original implementation blog post certainly seems to indicate so.
