Literally the opposite is true. Inbox had a huge team (bigger than Gmail) and while it was loved a lot by some, it never gained much traction among the regular Gmail users, and it'd have been impossible to migrate the enormous Gmail customer base over.
Now they are in countries in the Caribbean that have managed the virus relatively well and are overloading their public health system because they urgently need tests. Canada is just creating a problem for poorer countries while gaining very little - there's barely any community spread. If a Canadian returns home from the Carribean, on average both countries will have less covid.
Governments has been telling people for months not to go on vacation, that is correct, they should have thought of that before leaving.
They also gave 2 weeks notice so if you went somewhere and didn't think you could get a COVID test, there was still time to make it back home before the ban started.
If only these people would suffer that would be alright - it was their mistake. But rich countries should not make poorer countries pay for the bad decisions of their own citizens. Policy needs to be guided by data, not emotions.
The comment implies that this is somehow hardcoded just for Google sites, which is not true. Autoplay is allowed for sites with a high enough media engagement index. You can check chrome://media-engagement.
The media engagement index is based on a user's past activity on a site, but Chrome has a special list of "preloaded" sites that are allowed to autoplay video even without any prior media engagement.
One has to wonder whether they intentionally obfuscate this list. It sounds like they “trained” a browser, and captured the resulting state. I’m sure you can argue this makes things more fair (we trained it using real world behavior!), but I really can’t give them the benefit of the doubt anymore.
It's generated by a Python script [0] from a list of URLs, but the input list doesn't seem to be included in the Chromium source (only the binary output of this tool).
> The pre-seeded site list is generated based on the global percentage of site visitors who train Chrome to allow autoplay for that site; a site will be included on the list if a sizable majority of site visitors permit autoplay on it. The list is algorithmically generated, rather than manually curated, and with no minimum traffic requirement. With the implementation of the autoplay policy for Web Audio in M71, Web Audio playback is also included in calculating the MEI score for a given site.
Will this not have some kind of self-reinforcing behavior, as the measurements are biased towards sites that are currently unmuted by default?
According to the MEI it actively measures user behavior and one of the most important measures is that a video is unmuted. From the document:
“The MEI is meant to allow media heavy websites (e.g. YouTube, Netflix) that rely on autoplay for their core experience. It is a non-goal to allow websites with a “good media behaviour” to autoplay without restrictions”
It doesn’t sound too good, and still doesn’t really explain how everything is seeded.
Amazing. I once built a web app with autoplay, which worked for me, probably because I was using the app a lot which gave it high media engagement, but didn't work for others, and I never figured out the problem until now.
People have been saying that about Sweden for a long time.
My money is on all other countries doing something closer to the swedish model when the next wave hits in winter.
These are really two independent issues. The justification for current lockdowns is nominally 'flattening the curve' because we were ill-prepared to handle a flood of serious cases. We can hope that, in another nine months, many of the specific shortages will have been addressed.
One issue that I would like to have seen mentioned here is whether Sweden's resources for treating the very sick have the capacity to handle an increasing rate of infection, if claims that it is over the hump turn out to be premature.
I think this is accurate. Fears of medical systems being overrun are generally overstated. The threat to doctors is already maximal, and by extending the length of the epidemic we're just extending the time they're at maximal risk. There's an argument towards buying time for more PPE availability but I think that's a bad bet. Lockdowns lifted before something like herd immunity is reached isn't going to help. If less than 10% of the population is immune, then you're in the same boat when the lockdown is lifted and you've achieved basically nothing but buying time. I don't think anybody would say we can endure a lockdown FOREVER. I think it's naive to think we can endure a lockdown for even one year without economic devastation causing far more harm than the virus, let alone the ambiguous timeline towards a vaccine.
A lot of people are going to die. More people will die if the lockdown is lifted, and many of those who would have died anyway will die sooner. But famine, crime, war, and authoritarianism will cost more. On a global scale I have no doubt that disease is less harmful than poverty in terms of happiness or lives lost. The same for any given country as a whole. For wealthy communities perhaps not.
It is frustrating to me that saying such things comes off as right wing or anti-science. I feel the calls to keep the lockdown going are a thing of entitlement from those who can afford to do so. There's a middleground where you lockdown those at risk, reduce travel, and encourage sanitation practices but open things up.
I live in a small Midwestern state. A friend's mother is going through oncology, and is having complications due to the treatment regimen. Yesterday she had to be put in ICU for a day because every other bed in the facility was being used for COVID-19.
This isn't in the local news, nor regional news. It's almost like it's a dirty secret.
You may not consider this "overrun" but I do. I sure hope I don't have appendicitis or a stroke because it'll be an issue...
That is an issue, but its a separate issue. The concern that COVID is going to drastically overrun hospitals to the point at which we simply cannot take in more people and cause even the young to die is mostly not an accurate depiction of how hospitals and their capacity works.
It's true, a prolonged lockdown could potentially keep hospital usage low enough that things like this aren't happening, but only temporarily, and not in a way that meaningfully diminishes the threat of the virus and similar hospital burdens occurring later. You can't slowly let everyone acquire immunity. The disease either exponentially spreads to a sufficient scale or it spreads too slowly to build up a community resistance that permits a lockdown to end without consequence.
I really do empathize with people who are suffering, but what do you do if 6 months from now the disease is still here, we don't have a vaccine, and the economic situation is worse? You either release it, and put us back at the beginning with these same woes we're encountering now, or we keep holding the lockdown for short term loss of life avoidance at significant economic cost.
From everything I've read, the hospitals in Lombardy could have surged even higher. Hospitals, in general, can expand care to many more people than they're scoped to handle. It means that each person gets worse quality care, but for an untreatable disease, there's little you can do to treat it anyway. Ventilator mortality is extremely high. My sense is ballpark 80% mortality rate, and that's just an average. With ventilator + age + pre-existing conditions assessment there's a large number of people that have extremely low chances of survival. At the level of triage decisions being made, I'd expect very few additional lives to have been lost.
I get that this is tragic. I get that people are dying. I get that this is an enormous mental and emotional toll on doctors. I get that we should be cautious and avoid needless exposure, especially to vulnerable populations or with unnecessary large social gatherings. But the lockdown is not saving lives. It's delaying inevitable deaths, at an economic cost which could kill even more people!
Not an accurate depiction? Perhaps you should read up on how Lombardy's health care system fared for Italy. Or travel to Bellevue Nebraska, and ask why non-COVID patients are being kept in ER (hint: it's because all the non-ER beds are full of COVID patients).
Also, you're idea of how herd immunity functions is not accurate.
We'll have the virus here in 6 months; no doubt in my mind. We'll have it combined with the annual flu. We won't have a vaccine either, though perhaps some therapeutic treatment if we're lucky.
No, we won't reach herd immunity for at least a year at this rate. And the political pressure to "open up" the economy will become too great since we don't have a real welfare net in America.
So my estimate at the end of the year is that we'll have about 40% of the population infected or recovered. We'll have roughly 19M hospitalized during the next 8 months, and 1.4M deaths. This will cripple our country, our economy, and our people. Yeah, I'm a pessimist. Everything I've seen about how this country is reacting confirms my priors.
How can we avoid this? Keep things shut down to a bare minimum of true essential services. Protect the employees doing essential services to the max. Implement a social safety net so workers don't lose everything. Do the same for businesses, since demand is drying up fast. Listen to scientists instead of firing them for disagreeing with the POTUS about hydrochloroquine. Develop reliable serological tests so that immune people can safely work.
Most importantly, be lucky. The US has been lucky for a long long time; for most of its history. Hopefully that will continue, and rub off on the rest of the world that is in far dire straits.
You cannot "just" provide a social safety net. That's not how the economy works. Somewhere between 10 and 20% of households with kids did not have enough to eat. Now more people, especially the poor, are out of work, and food prices have gone up because we're producing less food. Giving a handout to keep people afloat makes sense as a short term fix but it's not a viable long term solution.
You're saying we're going to see 1.4M deaths on the current track. Well what's the deaths on your track? There's NO WAY to open up the economy without the virus resuming its spread. You haven't lowered the deaths, you've just delayed it at great economic cost.
Right I agree but that will happen in a few weeks already when measures are relaxed. There is no reason we know of that the virus will wait until winter. The next wave will already have started in places where lockdowns are being lifted.
I mean. In all likelihood covid 19 will last at least 2 years(til successful vaccine)? Wouldn't it be likely that most countries populations cannot stay at home that long? Not even intermittently(like 2mths locked down every 6mths)? Whereas if the swedes dont overwhelm their hospitals they can go on like this for as long as they like?
> In all likelihood covid 19 will last at least 2 years(til successful vaccine)?
Why not hoping for some drug development to bring the disease to clinically manageable levels? There are far more drugs in trials than vaccines (even though I expect the majority to miss the mark, as is the case with drug development).
If we can get a vaccine in under 6 years it would be unprecedented. 2 years would be astonishing. Most take 8-10 to go from lab work to peoples arms.
Waiting for a vaccine is not a good long term strategy. If a country can lock down long enough to kill its own spread it can re-open its economy safely so long as international borders remain closed.
These are the same two cases that people have been mentioning for weeks, which have been reported in a chaotic period at the beginning of an outbreak. All other signs point to immunity for at least a couple of months, likely even longer.
This kind of marketing content is often provided by an agency. Hosting it on google.com where users are logged in would require extremely strict security reviews.
as far as I know Bosch is a private company. A lot less for them to gain from PRs with 'blockchain' in them.
From the AMA Bosch did[1] it certainly seems like its more than just a blockchain PR and that they are actually putting resources towards this, but its hard to tell from the outside
Indeed. The Gmail app itself has been able to act as an IMAP client before, but (as it's purely client side) this mode doesn't offer all Gmail features and is quite battery and bandwidth intensive as IMAP wasn't really designed for mobile devices. With Gmailify, the IMAP synchronization happens on Google servers, which also do normal spam detection and categorization, and the phone accesses the data like any normal Gmail account.
