If you're willing to use SaaS services (as you're mentioned OneDrive already), there are proper E2EE providers where you can work together and share files. Although I am not sure real time collaboration (such as Google Docs or Office online) is feasible with end-to-end encryption yet.
OneDrive is cheapest 1TB cloud storage I can get. I don't care about realtime colaboration, ony sharing files here and there, but having them encrypted on cloud.
YC recently invested in another European-based AI/data science online school, Strive School [0]. What are your main differentiators compared to them?
edit: Also, can you elaborate on this: "We're cheaper than Lambda school because we have optimized-focused learning platform & education processes. With that we can have 70% less staff to deliver the same and even higher education quality"?
Just want to understand your value propositon better as I am seriously considering to attend a bootcamp like yours.
Hi, thanks, great questions!
We give a lot more flexibility compared to the Strive School. There are no lectures or schedules at Turing College, and you can progress at your speed by unlocking each new part of the course on our digital learning platform. So we target a wider audience of people from software engineers who want to upskill (this isn't the case for Strive school as they don't provide such flexibility) and people who requalify to data science.
Also, our curriculum is co-created with tech companies we partner with as our Hiring Partners (we have 17 partners now). So, we know what those companies are looking for in new hires, and we adapt our curriculum accordingly; we also have their commitment to hiring our grads with our job placement program. Strive school doesn't do that.
If I understand correctly, Strive School curriculum is mostly presented in video recordings. With us, you'll be a part of our tight-knit community of peers and industry professionals, interacting daily via online calls or discord chats and working on real-world projects that our Hiring Partners are now solving.
As for the "70% less staff to deliver the same and even higher education quality ", this is enabled by letting students assess each other's work with the supervision of Senior Data Scientists. It means that we don't need senior staff for every project assessment but only for crucial ones. So by having the platform that organizes assessments in that way, we ensure the quality and the need of less senior staff. We can track how students are assessing each other, and they are doing that objectively. With our learning platform, which follows that we can react to any cheating situation instantly.
Can you please point me a source where Bitcoin is "desired" as a payment method? It's seen more of a store of value, not used for paying for everyday things.
It is titled "Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System"
So, based just on the title, it's pretty clear that it's original intent was as an electronic payment method.
The first sentence of the abstract is: "A purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash would allow online payments to be sent directly from one party to another without going through a financial institution"
If you read the rest of the whitepaper it's pretty clear that the original intent was as a mechanism to facilitate payments and transactions.
Are you arguing that the original Bitcoin whitepaper is invalid as a source of whether Bitcoin is "desired" as a payment method?
Clearly, at least one person (the author of the whitepaper!) "desired" Bitcoin as a payment method. They desired it so much, that they went off an invented it!
If that doesn't count as a source indicating what someone "desires" then nothing does.
Isn't the revisionist history amazing? All of the other use cases (e.g. smart contracts) are proven failures and now the original use case (payment method) is also clearly a failure, so the narrative shifts to "it was never intended to be a payment method, only a store of value". A store of value that can drop 40% in days, BTW, another failed use case.
You’re asking for a source to prove that people want to use a cryptocurrency as currency? Feels a little like asking for a scientific paper proving that fish swim in water.
Unfortunately food intolerancies could appear at very early childhood causing several gut & non-gut related problems. So in that case a child can't know what is healthy or good because the baseline is so bad.
This is great and much needed advice. My parents didn’t realize my stomach problems early on despite having a decent diet, and it affected me more later in life.
There is a few end-to-end encrypted storage providers[0][1], where you can share your files externally with other users without breaking the encryption for a long time.
Would your mother understand the "simply use GPG on top of IMAP or Mailvelope" part? These E2EE products are not for the tech savy users, who are willing to go to the extra mile.
One of my classmates came back from Africa to Europe this March without any symptoms. 10 days later she got high fever, dizziness, and unfortunately she could not even recognise her family. Everyone thought its COVID, and doctors recommended her to stay home to not spread the "virus". Unfortunately when she got the the hospital, the diagnostics was too late to and she died in malaria 1,5 days later.
Please beware of this infection and get the medication even if it has strong side effects.
I had a friend who was attending Stanford. He did a class trip to Africa, then back to the US. He also started to feel ill (but not too bad), so decided to fly home for winter break. He died of malaria on the flight to London. He was only 32 years old.
"class trip to Africa"- Its strange they didn't require him to get a shot before going to a country in Africa that is a Malaria risk. I know a lot UCLA and Michigan students who did exchange programs to African countries and got shots before leaving.
Malaria prophylaxis is pretty rough in and of itself, and it's not really recommended unless you're going to be in high-risk areas (source, tried to get it myself when going into Mozambique from South Africa, was told there that unless I was planning to stay "in the bush" for a few weeks, it was a bad idea)
South African here. Fact is most of our country is malaria free, the cities etc especially so. It’s only in the hottest, most humid part of the Bush that you will get the mosquitos, and then generally in summer.
When I travelled to Kenya last year my wife and I took malaria medication, we would do the same if going to a malaria area in SA in summer.
Sorry to hear. I wonder if this sort of thing is due to people not using travel agencies anymore? Before I started buying my own tickets I would go to the travel agency (in NZ) and depending on where I flew they always had a list of recommendation vaccines and such that I should take before going.
I don't know if travel agencies act similar outside of NZ.
Makes you wonder how many people have actually died so far this way. Being told to stay home and not spread covid, meanwhile something else is actually terribly wrong.
There was an Oncologist who was talking about how the number of women coming in for regular exams was non-existent for two months. A few months is enough time for breast cancer to go from stage 1 to stage 2, and for 5 year survival rates to drop by a third[0].
There are going to be a ton of secondary effects due to prematurely closing or clearing out hospitals and clinics, and many people have already died from completely preventable illnesses, with some clinics telling people to not come in when they should have.
With screenings, you have to be really careful about selection bias. Basically, screening will catch a larger proportion of slow growing cancer. Also with respect to staging, the slower growing a cancer, the earlier the stage you will catch it at.
My guess would be that if you have a cancer that is rapidly going from stage 1 to stage 2, you would already have a worse outcome and the 2 months screening hiatus is not going to be that big a difference maker.
EDIT:
In case people ask about clinical breast exams and self breast exams, here are the American Cancer Society guidelines:
"Research has not shown a clear benefit of regular physical breast exams done by either a health professional (clinical breast exams) or by women themselves (breast self-exams)."
So the only guidelines with evidence backing them up call for 2 year screenings. Within that framework, a 2 month delays are not going to be very clinically significant.
I don't understand where you'd get that implication.
Some presumably fairly predictable fraction would have an exam scheduled during the beginning of the epidemic, and a certain fraction of them would have undiagnosed cancer. It seems reasonable to assume significant negative consequences for those people.
Presumably some women would have had an exam in February but developed enough cancer to be visible in March, so delaying a couple of months had a huge positive impact on their outcome. How can we measure the net result of all these variables?
Think about it this way: you run a clinic that detects 100 cases of early stage breast cancer a month. So you detect a total of 1200 per year, right? Now imagine you close for three months. What happens? Well, 300 of these cases do not get detected during that period. Could they get detected later after you reopen? Sure but by its nature it means that they may not be early stage anymore. Also, some percentage of the women would not reschedule an appointment right away since when the clinic reopens it will be overdue by three months worth of appointments so they might wait much longer to be seen vs the regular schedule, exacerbating the problem.
You are correct that on an individual level it is a game of chance: if you are going to develop breast cancer it’s a bad thing but if by chance you develop it in the right window of time right before your annual exam, your outcome is likely to be better. But from the point of view of screening a large population stopping testing for a period of time is bad.
Think about it in terms of COVID: what would happen if all testing was shut down for a month? No, not everyone who gets COVID would get it in that month but the people who do will absolutely not get tested, right?
No argument here, but you've changed from "percent women who develop early stage breast cancer per month * number of months closed per year" (which I responded to) to "percent early stage breast cancer cases caught per month * number of months closed per year", which sounds more accurate.
No. It varies by age or location but it'd be once a year at max - unless perhaps you had already had it or for some other reason were extraordinarily high risk.
Exams performed by someone else? About once a year.
A self-exam once a month is one of those "good hygiene" things, though, and might be a decent idea to promote right now while people are getting cagey.
According to this New York Times article from the beginning of May, excess deaths in the United States outpaced official Coronavirus reporting by 33%. This obviously varies significantly by country. Certainly many more people are dying at home than previous years.
My understanding is that excess deaths statistic would also COVID deaths. You'd need to subtract COVID deaths from excess deaths. (and be certain that all COVID deaths are reported as such...)
Right - so ~25% of excess deaths in April in the United States were not directly caused by COVID-19, but were almost certainly indirectly caused by the virus, either via the 'medical care chilling effect' mentioned above, or through misattribution, or through other mechanisms like the increase in suicide.
This excess death mechanism has the potential to be very severe in very poor countries, where famine is likely to follow this plague. It's really quite sad.
The problem is that SARS-CoV-2 is so capable of infecting and disrupting a broad variety of cells that many multi-organ symptoms might manifest, so it wouldn't be a surprise if that's what's presumed to be the cause of an ailment at first considering its reproduction number.
It's terrifying. A friend of a friend of my wife just lost her baby. It was something that would have been easily seen in a routine screening, but because of COVID the OB/GYN wasn't having patients come to the office. It's heart breaking.
Are you saying she wouldn't have lost the baby if she had a routine screen or it would have given her the ability to deal with the issue a litle bit easier by planning a dnc?
I've been part of many miscarriages and doctors can tell you something is wrong but rarely can they fix anything before 12 weeks.
On top of that, it wouldn't be like the hospitals would be business as usual if the lockdown didn't occur. Models mostly showed they would have had their hands full with covid cases (and therefore still not handling normal cases and elective stuff). Additionally many people going to hospitals for whatever reason would likely end up exposed to COVID.
The ex-Covid death rate in New York is significantly above its baseline. Part of this may be undiagnosed covid deaths, but with less people out doing dangerous things, a lot of it is probably people avoiding hospitals.
ex-Covid rate is more likely due to undiagnosed covid. Especially when you look at the excess death rate compared to previous annual rates. (at least last time I looked at the graphs).
The excess death rate (ex covid) is relative to previous annual rates. I don't think you can disambiguate between "deaths due to undiagnosed covid" and "deaths due to untreated illness due to avoiding hospitals"
You're right. But if the excess mirrors the diagnosed rate (rise and fall) one might reasonably infer that it is driven by covid. Compared to deaths resulting from/driven by people staying away from hospitals which would depend on when lockdowns were announced, when behaviors changed, etc.
Although both mechanisms would bear some relation, it looked to me more like it was driven by spread of the infection rather than changes to behavior.
The point that you can't really separate them completely is well-taken though.
EDIT: I'm clearly all over the place with terminology. Something along the lines of looking at the (all_cause_mortality - covid_deaths - historic_avg) residual and seeing how closely it mirrors say alpha*covid_deaths where alpha is some constant. If it mirrored it well (or for example preceded it and the lock downs in the manner that would be expected of infection) one might infer that those deaths were probably covid. If on the other hand they were strictly related to the time the news broke and lock downs and changes to hospital admittance rates, then it might be better explained as resulting from lockdown issues.
> But if the excess mirrors the diagnosed rate (rise and fall) one might reasonably infer that it is driven by covid. Compared to deaths resulting from/driven by people staying away from hospitals which would depend on when lockdowns were announced, when behaviors changed, etc.
Yea absolutely. I haven't seen yet seen any analysis that does this, but I'm sure one will come along soon
From a business point of view I think that creating a family plan would likely decrease their revenue (in the short term), as lot of small businesses/professional users would abuse this
Even though it's a webapp it can be end-to-end encrypted. Fortunately, they are planning to do it, but I am not 100% convinced that all the function will work on e2e notes.
Although most of the advices focuses on specific techniques (which is very important to focus on), I want to emphasize something different: diet and lifestyle.
Without sounding too obvious, I can not recommend you enough reducing caffeine and alcohol use (if its a problem) and focusing on sporting regularly.
