Sure but any HW engineer before writing HDL will always draw up a circuit before writing the description. And given that the patent was issued in 1996 it was only like 6-7 years after Verilog became an open standard.
They were probably referring to the three alerts that came out for the single event last weekend. The first two were garbage, telling us to google it? Only the last had information people could actually use.
4.5 million after taking all precautions and overloading medical systems of countries. Think how large that number would have been if we had gone our lives normally. Would have made the 1918 pandemic look like a picnic.
I don’t think there are many wheel guns that would give you 249,999/250,000 odds of survival. The number of people killed or injured by mRNA treatments is also not zero.
Sure tell that to the families of those who died from COVID19. Getting vaccinated is a much better way to get protection from COVID. I knew quite some folks who were hit by COVID twice, tell them that they were better off suffering through COVID twice instead of relying on the vaccine.
If I told you that it's extremely unlikely that you would die by rhino attack while going on a vacation to southern Africa, and your answer to that was "tell that to the family of X random guy who got trampled to death", as a reason for why you think i'm insane for saying you shouldn't be paranoid about African vacations, your argument would be obviously derided for being obsessive about focusing on only one abnormal thing. But apply the same logic to COVID and suddenly you think it's perfectly valid. It isn't. The vast majority of people who get the illness recover completely, and if you exclude the elderly, the statistical odds of recovery increase immensely. For the very young, they really are in the range of hundreds of thousands to one against dying.
Yeah poor analogy here, you can choose to not go to Southern Africa, you cannot will for COVID to not infect you. Why should we not be eager for vaccines when they are available for such a highly infectious disease.
Flip the scenario, during the second wave in India, we were one of the few families in our neighborhood who were lucky that no family members caught COVID. All the local hospitals were filled, a large number of people we know survived but there were people who died around 4-5% of the people we knew who were infected and 40% who came very close to dying. The Delta variant arrived when a significant part of the elderly population had been vaccinated. You should recheck the your stats about the elderly, the second wave was brutal to under 40 folks as a good number of above 40 people had been vaccinated by the time the second wave hit.
Sure COVID might have a low fatality rate of 2-3% but 2-3% of a very huge population getting infected by a rapidly infectious disease is still a humungous number.
I have no idea where you got your 2-3% fatality rate for COVID from but it's way off the mark. That is the CFR in certain high risk circumstances but the known IFR of the virus after nearly 2 years of study and data collation has been fairly reasonably established by multiple health agencies. Not surprised by the numbers you use though... CDC Best estimates as of March 2021, For all but the very oldest population segments it's well below 1% across all age groups that are not very elderly. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/planning-scena...
For 20-30-somethings that probably read a pop-dev news aggregator? Probably not. Or are most of us in our 80s? There is also substantial variation in reported IFR between political jurisdictions per the CDC (1-9% I think). Seroprevalence based IFR estimates tend to be consistent across national boundaries (and is a much lower number), but I wouldn’t make so bold as to tell you to believe research studies over political appointees at the CDC.
Because what you know first hand of the disease is useless for others. My 54 year old uncle had COVID. He was just in the hospital for 5 days and came back no different from before COVID. My 29 year old friend spent 2 weeks ventilated in ICU and dying of multi organ failure
The symptoms of COVID 19 are not always flu like. It is a spectrum of symptoms which is not yet understood why it expresses in different bodies differently.
During the Second wave in India a lot of my friends and acquaintances got it and their symptoms were all over the place. Some had diarrhea like symptoms, some had no visible symptoms at all, some simply lost the ability to smell and became physically weak.
Knowing this information, trying to be safe from COVID by catching it is no less than playing Russian roulette and it makes choosing to take a vaccine no brainer.
Were your examples vaccinated? This thread is talking about having issues with /others/ not being vaccinated. My point stands: if the vaccine works, why am I (a vaccinated person) worried about what someone else does?
I can keep taking boosters, keep wearing masks, keep trying to stay healthy. That has nothing to do with people (who are not me) doing whatever they want with their situation.
As for my examples, they were hit by COVID a month before vaccines were made available to them
Vaccines work when a significant part of the population has them, if workplaces and schools can institute vaccine mandates against diseases like Diphtheria, Measles, Rubella etc. Why should a disease much more infectious than them not get a mandate?
If someone has access to the vaccine in their area and have not taken it yet for any reason other than a medical reason should really do some proper "research" and get it ASAP.
As a vaccinated person, why you should care or not other people get vaccinated or not?
1. Less reservoirs for viruses to mutate into more harmful strains.
2. There are people who are immunocompromised , who cannot take vaccines . They are protected by those who are healthy and have been vaccinated.
3. >90% of all recent COVID deaths in the US have been of unvaccinated persons. A non trivial percent of the vaccinated dead by COVID were immunocompromised who were infected by unvaccinated folks.
If these reasons cannot convince you, I don't know what can.
> As for my examples, they were hit by COVID a month before vaccines were made available to them
I'm sorry for your relations that caught it, but my question was rhetorical. Using unvaccinated people's suffering doesn't help the argument that we should force people to get vaccinated against their will, if the vaccines work for people who want to take them.
If you suffer when you are unvaccinated-by-choice, then that is on you.
> 1. Less reservoirs for viruses to mutate into more harmful strains.
As opposed to the population that has taken the vaccine, but is still capable of catching it due to "break through cases"? Wouldn't a "leaky" vaccine cause more mutation due to evolutionary pressure than people catching it and building immunity?
> 2. There are people who are immunocompromised , who cannot take vaccines . They are protected by those who are healthy and have been vaccinated.
Why are they "protected", and the people who aren't vaccinated by choice not "protected"?
> 3. >90% of all recent COVID deaths in the US have been of unvaccinated persons. A non trivial percent of the vaccinated dead by COVID were immunocompromised who were infected by unvaccinated folks.
What happens when an vaccinated person has a break through case and gives it to an unvaccinated person who is immunocompromised?
> If these reasons cannot convince you, I don't know what can.
I'm not convinced. This seems more like an ethics litany than a reason we should a) create two classes of citizenry (the vaccinated and the unvaccinated) or b) violate people's body autonomy "for their own good".
The careful omission of a statement whether English was one of those three languages leads me to believe it was not. Had it been, he would have very likely said so, and talked about how the American was wrong for assuming that because someone speaks in an Indian accent their native language isn't English. Instead, he dodges the point entirely and takes offence that someone should care about the difference between being a fluent and a native speaker. Whether or not he's right about that, claiming you are a native speaker of a language when you did not speak it from earliest childhood is factually incorrect.
There's also the fact the title of the article is "Nonnative English speakers share their gripes about speaking English" which leads me to believe the people sharing their gripes are, in fact, not native speakers of English.
