If you have a windows 10 laptop, pinching on the touchpad seems to give you the same zoom functionality now. vastly superior than the one built into the browser
It was nearly a golden age in indochina. People in countries like Malaysia, Indonesia, (South) Korea, Thailand, Taiwan, etc experienced incredible and permanent improvement in living standards
but yeah it wasn't that great anywhere south of cancun or cairo
Despite what western media outlets say, this is not necessarily a bad thing. Military juntas are often a good/restorative part of government in countries like Thailand and Myanmar, and are well received by the general public.
Doesn't mesh well with washington kissinger pastiche though
We've banned this account for using HN repeatedly for flamewar and ignoring repeated requests to stop. That's an abuse of the site and not cool at all.
No, we don't support genocide. We're just trying to have an internet forum not destroy itself.
"But her personal defence of the army's actions at the ICJ hearing last year in the Hague was seen as a new turning point that obliterated what little remained of her international reputation." [1] from this article itself.
"No one told me I was going to be interviewed by a Muslim" [2]
Will admit that I am not very familiar with Myanmar politics, but the above sentence from the article seems to indicate the opposite. Now, it is entirely possible that she was forced to do that due to military pressure at home.
Also, I have an allergic reaction to statements made that "everyone speaks in favor of an X leader" anywhere. I am pretty sure the Rohingyas aren't all that in favor of her, even though they have no good options any way.
Military rule has been a complete and utter disaster for Myanmar. It's one of the poorest countries in the world, brutal repression, ethnic cleansing, isolation, the list goes on. There is nothing at all to redeem it.
I'm from Nepal. We're next doors to Myanmar. We have democracy, social policies (even universal healthcare, which is comically bad anyway but we do have that), freedom of speech, free press, yadda yadda but Myanmar is still richer than us. The disagreements of democratically elected leaders has been the main cause of political instability for us for more than a decade now.
> We have democracy, social policies (even universal healthcare, which is comically bad anyway but we do have that), freedom of speech, free press, yadda yadda
Most middle-eastern countries do not have this either...
> but Myanmar is still richer than us.
but I am willing to bet they are richer than both Nepal and Myanmar. It seems what Myanmar has over Nepal is natural resources, (just like the middle eastern countries). This is nothing to be proud of.
We are blessed in other ways too. We have a huge hydroelectricity potential that we haven't tapped fully. The problem is that people are insanely xenophobic and foreign investment is derided as "selling out to foreigners" here. Existing rules make it a nightmare for prospective foreign investors. There's not much capital inside to invest on our own natural resources.
Don't know what you're getting at. There's no autocracy in Nepal (at least not yet). The Maoists won a free and fair election (Socialism is just that popular here). At most the country is super-duper and insanely socialistic, with government owning multiple large monopolies. Unless you call yourself a "socialist" you won't be winning any elections here. Unfortunately there is no pro-business/capitalistic political party in Nepal and that is what I sincerely believe is lacking here.
Freedom alone is not democracy; that's just liberalism. Social justice, economic equality and others including political power control from people are important part of democracy.
It is being allowed with proper oversight. These people are just experimenting underground.
The problem with this tech isn't just the Übermensch (or should I say, ÜberTiāncháo) that we will have to deal with, but more subtle. For instance, a percentage of northern europeans are already partially genetically immune to HIV/AIDS [1]
People with sickle cell anaemia are already somewhat immune to Malaria [2]. Some gibbering genius in a laboratory might decide to cure the human race of Anaemia and inadvertently cause millions of people to start dying of malaria or dengue.
There are plenty of "problem" genes that we carry in our genome that scientists will want to "fix", and then we will discover the hard way why those genes are there in the first place. This absolutely needs to be controlled. The coming man will not be an Übermensch, but a CRISPR-castrato
Research with human participants is being over-sighted to the point that real research is virtually impossible. I say this, having seen the IRB approval process for human subject research. Research institutes just don't want to take on the risk
The real question is why are people incapable of regulating their own behaviour. It's convenient to say that talking about hanging politicians encourages this behaviour, and contributes to it
End of the day though -- why should my speech be held as responsible for another persons conduct?
Yeah, I just asked a question. When? I'm not asking anyone to do it. I don't really want anyone to do it. I'm comfortable. But I do suspect it may happen soon.
Unfortunately, personal responsibility has gone down the absolute shitter in the USA, hence why they are limiting our liberties - those only work in a society of nice people.
It won't, but the media will blame it on the alt-right. "White privileged mcdonalds workers oppress poor minority new york billionaires with their greedy market manipulation! "
the word retard is common parlance in many parts of the world.
But lets not be retarded about this, the point is more that they are using a puritan argument about the word retard in a retarded manner in order to shut down discourse, to try and retard the share price of a stock, which has had absolutely retarded performance lately.
That’s the doomsday scenario and thankfully “completely useless” is quite unlikely. However all viruses mutate and so it’s only a matter of time before the current vaccines become gradually less effective. We give people 3-4 new vaccines a year (usually in one “flu shot”) in the never ending battle against the mutating influenza virus. So it’s really important we get as many people vaccinated ASAP. Every new person infected makes millions upon millions of copies of the virus, each one being a new opportunity for mutations to develop. Stopping infections exponentially slows down the rate at which the virus can mutate simply because it’s being “photocopied” fewer and fewer times.
No, looks like it is easy to modify existing mRNA vaccines slightly and give booster shots
>“Every time a new variant comes up we should be able to test whether or not [our vaccine] is effective,” Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla told Bloomberg news. “Once we discover something that is not as effective, we will very, very quickly be able to produce a booster dose that will be a small variation to the current vaccine.”
I remember reading somewhere a claim that the initial development of the (a?) mRNA vaccine was basically over a weekend; the testing and scaling to manufacture took the rest of the time.
True; it was ready in January. Proving it is safe definitely takes times.
> By the time the first American death was announced a month later, the vaccine had already been manufactured and shipped to the National Institutes of Health for the beginning of its Phase I clinical trial.
A big part of the safety concerns were about the lipid layer outside the mRNA triggering autoimmune reaction, which doesn't need to change, so changing only the mRNA data should be relatively safe.
Tack-on question: Even if a mutation can (re)infect people who have been vaccinated or previously had COVID, can we assume their immune response would at least be improved?
I thought this was quite interesting; after considerable negative coverage in the news-media, now an article in the American Journal of Medicine has recommended treatment of 200mgof Hydroxochloroquine per day for Covid-19 patients.
Negative media coverage has continued until quite recently:
"The American Journal of Medicine" doesn't, one study published in it does. The title is "Pathophysiological Basis and Rationale for Early
Outpatient Treatment of SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19)
Infection". It brings no new information regarding Hydroxochloroquine, but instead claims other studies show enough benefits (while not being classical good quality data as usually required) to recommend it in their protocol. Also recommends zinc and azithromycin. Bit of a nothing burger IMO.
after considerable negative coverage in the news-media, now the American Journal of Medicine has recommended treatment of 200mgof Hydroxochloroquine per day for Covid-19 patients.
The AJM hasn't recommended anything. AJM has published a paper titled "Pathophysiological Basis and Rationale for Early Outpatient Treatment of SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) Infection".
It hasn't published it "now". It has published it back in August of 2020.
According to the abstract, "This article outlines key pathophysiological principles that relate to the patient with early infection treated at home. Therapeutic approaches based on these principles include 1) reduction of reinoculation, 2) combination antiviral therapy, 3) immunomodulation, 4) antiplatelet/antithrombotic therapy, and 5) administration of oxygen, monitoring, and telemedicine".
Discussion of the HQC treatment in the article:
Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) is an antimalarial/anti-inflammatory drug that impairs endosomal transfer of virions within human cells. HCQ is also a zinc ionophore that conveys zinc intracellularly to block the SARS-CoV-2 RNA-dependent RNA polymerase, which is the core enzyme of the virus replication. The currently completed retrospective studies and randomized trials have generally shown these findings: 1) when started late in the hospital course and for short durations of time, antimalarials appear to be ineffective, 2) when started earlier in the hospital course, for progressively longer durations and in outpatients, antimalarials may reduce the progression of disease, prevent hospitalization, and are associated with reduced mortality.
In a retrospective inpatient study of 2541 patients hospitalized with COVID-19, therapy associated with an adjusted reduction in mortality was HCQ alone (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.34, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.25-0.46, P <0.001) and HCQ with azithromycin (HR = 0.29, 95% CI 0.22-0.40, P <0.001).23 HCQ was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration in 1955, has been used by hundreds of millions of people worldwide since then, is sold over the counter in many countries, and has a well-characterized safety profile that should not raise undue alarm. Although asymptomatic QT prolongation is a well-recognized and infrequent (<1%) complication of HCQ, it is possible that in the setting of acute illness symptomatic arrhythmias could develop. Data safety and monitoring boards have not declared safety concerns in any clinical trial published to date. Rare patients with a personal or family history of prolonged QT syndrome and those on additional QT prolonging, contraindicated drugs (eg, dofetilide, sotalol) should be treated with caution and a plan to monitor the QTc in the ambulatory setting. A typical HCQ regimen is 200 mg bid for 5 days and extended to 30 days for continued symptoms. A minimal sufficient dose of HCQ should be used, because in excessive doses the drug can interfere with early immune response to the virus.
>The AJM hasn't recommended anything. AJM has published a paper titled "Pathophysiological Basis and Rationale for Early Outpatient Treatment of SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) Infection".
>It hasn't published it "now". It has published it back in August of 2020.
"The American Journal of Medicine, Vol 134, No 1, January 2021", Page 18, shows a treatment algorithm for Covid-19-like and confirmed Covid-19 illness, specifying 200mg of Hydroxochloroquine for patients over the age of 50 or with a single comorbidity.
I'm not talking about the primary study on HCQ, but the treatment algorithm is recent.
