20 Patients in Study with COV19
* 65% of them went to ICU (13 patients)
* 35% of them did not (7 patients)
Of the 13 Patients in the ICU 84.6% (11 patients) had VDI
Of the 7 Patients not in ICU 57.4% (4 Patients) had VDI
Thin gruel indeed. But all they are saying is that it's perhaps worth doing a real study. That's fair.
Regulation often leads to regulatory walls around businesses, protecting them from competing with innovative new solutions, leading to lower quality of life for all. How does your worldview discount for this?
In my experience "regulatory wall" is created by not refreshing regulations often enough, and by corruption and lobbying creating regulation with the sole purpose of limiting competition, instead of protecting the consumer. We need to lower the bar to get rid of bad regulation (making a vote issue?).
We should work towards minimizing the abuse of regulations (we will never be able to eliminate it) rather than be afraid of adding more regulations.
> The Oath Keepers are more extreme than nearly all other
> white people. Just a fact. Read up on them and I think
? you will agree.
Are they more extreme than nearly all other non-white people as well? Or just more extreme than white people? ;-)
For non-americans, the idea of a group of people who do not instantly submit to individual figures in authority, but instead, resist those in authority if they believe that those in authority are infringing on rights that are protected by the constitution, may seem really bizarre.
To condemn an organization because their raison d'etre is such resistance, would be normal in other countries, but it's a little frightening how a quick google search shows that condemnation here in America (assuming the people who wrote those pages were American).
I know a lot of HN readers are not American, so just wanted to clarify that we do have a slightly less submissive culture over here.
For non-americans, the idea of a group of people who do not instantly submit to individual figures in authority, but instead, resist those in authority if they believe that those in authority are infringing on rights that are protected by the constitution, may seem really bizarre.
For SAFE Network, this is handled, I believe. Other networks that implement PARSEC will need to address it in some similar way.
In the case of SAFE, you can generate as many nodes as you want, but they must be valid nodes (doing the work that the network asks of them) for a long time before being promoted to a status that allows them to participate in consensus of a section. Any misbehavior on their part results in demotion or failure to be promoted. So each node would need to be a legitimate contributor to the network, with all that that entails, before being promoted to a status where their later misbehavior would matter. You would be creating real nodes, that used real bandwidth and real CPU resources and did real work that benefits the network, in order to infiltrate your evil nodes into the network. So, not an insubstantial cost to you.
Your nodes will be assigned into sections randomly, so it will be very difficult for you to manage to get multiple nodes with voting status, into a single section, and staggeringly difficult to get enough such that your nodes constitute 1/3rd of that section. Of course, exactly how difficult depends on network size (number of sections).
Finally, even once a node is assigned into a particular section, it will be reassigned to another random section at some interval, further decreasing your ability to take over a particular section.
> Finally, even once a node is assigned into a particular section, it will be reassigned to another random section at some interval, further decreasing your ability to take over a particular section.
Doesn't that on the flipside also mean that given enough time your malicious nodes will end up in the same section, allowing for a take over of that section?
As the network grows it becomes increasingly harder to do so, especially since you need to add increasing amounts of resources (bandwidth, disk space, and some cpu, for the proof-of-resource) to your attack.
This is not too dissimilar to what happens with CPU-only PoW consensus networks. Easy to attack in the beginning but less so as the network grows.
It will be interesting to see how the SAFE network will be bootstrapped. I'm sure there will be a significant number of malicious players waiting in line to disrupt it early on.
If it works, and I believe it can, IMHO this network will be one of the most important developments in decentralised systems in the past decade.
Yes, I believe that there is a non-zero probability that could happen, just as there is a non-zero probability that all the air molecules in the room you are in, which are bouncing around randomly, may all end up in the other corner of the room and suffocate you.
Since all nodes change sections randomly, like air molecules, they should remain randomly distributed, provided the network size is large enough. For a small network though, one can imagine you could get lucky eventually. Like other decentralized networks, security and size are related.
Except they're not "mouth pieces". Local journalists are much more independent than national ones. This instance by Sinclair of attempting to combat the national news broadcasters was a David vs Goliath attempt, and they are coming out of it much worse than David did.
"Independence" is incompatible with "being forced by corporate to grant your credibilty to their talking points".
You can't say Sinclair is "combating the national news broadcasters"; they themselves are a national news broadcaster. They just happen to like branding themselves with local faces.
Please explain how "independent" they are, in the context of them being forced to repeat a script from Sinclair news. I'm not even sure how you can miss the contradiction.
This is a common question. I suggest you think of it like stocks on the NYSE or NASDAQ. Does every IPO decrease the value of the already listed companies? Just as Comcast and Dish are both television distribution companies that manage to serve different markets, so to can different coins coexist. This is especially true when the coins have completely different objectives and are not just chasing the retail point of sale niche.
