Studies have shown that COVID-19 has similar mechanisms of action as parasitic infections that target red blood cells. That's why Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine (drugs for parasitic diseases, such as malaria, a red-blood cell parasite) have shown success in clinical trials and in vitro studies. That's also why sweet wormwood (Artemisia annua, plant species used for malaria, and the plant that Artemisinin, winner of the nobel peace prize in 2015 is derived from) has been found in laboratory settings to be effective against COVID-19. And why alkoloids from cryptolepis (another anti-malarial herb) are also being researched by various countries and researchers. Vaccines and potential treatments are not mutually exclusive. If you have the biological background like I do then looking up the studies should be a piece of cake. Downvote if you like. Since this is such a polarized topic, I really don't want to spend the energy to share all the studies if people don't have an open mind. But do your own research, the studies are there.
> A total of 1542 patients were randomised to hydroxychloroquine and compared with 3132 patients randomised to usual care alone. There was no significant difference in the primary endpoint of 28-day mortality (25.7% hydroxychloroquine vs. 23.5% usual care; hazard ratio 1.11 [95% confidence interval 0.98-1.26]; p=0.10). There was also no evidence of beneficial effects on hospital stay duration or other outcomes.
> These data convincingly rule out any meaningful mortality benefit of hydroxychloroquine in patients hospitalised with COVID-19.
I don't think you understand how science works. One study does not prove or disprove a hypothesis, especially on a highly politicized topic. Also, I made a general statement about parasitics being effective against covid because of similar mechanisms of action. I did not make a distinction on early disease very late-stage disease, including hospitalization, so I don't understand why you think that study disproves anything I said about general effectiveness.
Again, one study does not prove or disprove a hypothesis, but cherry-picking one study as evidence that my argument is wrong is certainly not how science works. However, it is interesting that hydroxychloroquine has been shown to work better in non-hospitalized or pre-hospitalized patients, which makes sense given covid's mechanism of action. The anti-parasitics essentially protect the red blood cells from infection, so I wouldn't be surprised if that is the reason why they may work better in non-hospitalized patients.
But...I don't have time to do a meta-analysis for people that aren't open to finding the truth, regardless of what political agenda the truth may support or not support.
Good luck to everyone so invested in proving or disproving each other's arguments. I've wasted enough time - now back to my work.
This reminds me of something that would be included in a JS engineering interview. I find questions like this to be ridiculous. Knowing the answer to a question about this 'gotcha' would be a pretty terrible signal about future engineering performance. I'll focus on writing good software and solving complex problems, thanks.
After reading this article, I feel slight annoyance. But maybe that is just me.
This post is on point. I spent a good amount of time working on multiple NativeScript apps (NS with Angular and NS with Vue) and can attest that the documentation is not good enough and that there are serious bugs that are pointed out and never fixed or addressed.
I will say that open-source is a good thing to do and that they are not solving an easy problem - developing native mobile apps with multiple JS frameworks like Angular and Vue. Good on them for the effort. On top of that, there is definitely a market need for an Angular / Vue / JS to native app library for people that don't want to use React-Native for whatever reason.
However, with that said...marketing their software as production ready, easy-to-use, and working out of the box while it being the exact opposite is harmful to the companies and developers that sink serious time and effort into building with NS. There needs to be more awareness like this blog post about how people should stay away from NS because of the issues mentioned. That is not being negative - it is being ethical and doing the right thing for the companies and developers that would end up having broken apps and serious sunken costs into platform that doesn't live up to what it says it does.
I have many Github issues that were acknowledged as bugs but never addressed or fixed. I even offered a workaround that people are probably still using to this day because they never fixed certain bugs and docs. I haven't really interacted with the NS people too much besides on a few issues that weren't answered, so I can't comment on their attitude, but I can attest that everything else the OP is saying is true about NS not being a good solution.
NS isn't soo terrible where nothing ever works. I believe the apps I worked on are still running in production. But, I'll put it this way - everyone learned from the experience that using NS is definitely not a good idea to use for developing mobile apps.
> marketing their software as production ready, easy-to-use, and working out of the box while it being the exact opposite
I stuck my nose into NativeScript years ago and turned right around because of the disconcertingly large gap between the slick experience promised by the project web site and the rough edges reported by people trying to use it.
Presenting your project as a polished solution when it still has a ton of rough edges is not a social norm, an emotional necessity, a human right, a signal of scrappy ambition, or "just what people do." It's a deception that can cause harm. Normally people are not within their rights to demand solutions from open-source projects, but it's fair to ask them to live up to their marketing. They could fix this by rewriting their marketing to better reflect the state of the project, so they attract the right users for the current level of maturity.
If you want to make valid comparisons, compare the energy usage of Bitcoin (and other blockchain-based solutions) to the energy usage of the current fiat system (with all its banks and other financial services companies). Plus, it is a fact that the majority of energy used to mine Bitcoin is renewable.
Let's be honest. It is obvious that the majority of HN users are anti-Bitcoin for a few reasons:
1) They see early adopters profiting mightily and have a zero-sum, envious mindset.
2) Silicon Valley promotes centralization. People have invested their careers in organizations that promote the centralization of the internet and technology, and Bitcoin is a threat to that.
3) Silicon Valley, once teeming with innovation because of diversity of though, is now completely monolithic in thought. The powers-that-be (i.e. Bill Gates, among others) are anti-Bitcoin, as it threatens their centralized power, and so Bitcoin has become out of fashion in Silicon Valley.
4) Politics. Bitcoin is decentralized and empowers those that privately and independently own it and transact with it. This is generally a libertarian concept. Silicon Valley, being very politically on the left, realizes that the independence that Bitcoin brings goes against their ethos of governmental and bureaucratic control. You cannot "cancel" or prevent someone you don't like from using the Bitcoin network - even if you disagree with them.
HN used to be great, in my opinion, and I hope things improve. My comments are sincere.
Now, prepare for my comment to get censored by a flood of downvotes in 1, 2, 3...
I never characterized the Fed as an "evil puppet master" - that is an exaggeration. However, the Fed is certainly responsible for wealth inequality. It's a simple concept that is 100% backed by the financial and socioeconomic data:
- Rich people (small percent of population, i.e. "the 1%") own the vast majority of assets
- Fed is pumping massive amount of money into financial markets, which pumps up asset prices artificially
- Cost of living sky-rockets since the rich use their increased net worth to buy more assets, causing housing prices and other assets to skyrocket
- Purchasing power of the dollar to buy assets is severely decreased. Wages are stagnant but assets have skyrocketed. This causes feedback loops where the poor / middle-class don't have money to buy assets and the rich keep getting more money to buy more assets, hence runaway wealth inequality and social unrest.
No reason to have so much contempt against this argument. It's based on the evidence.
Business cycles and asset inflation are different. Business cycles are natural to capital markets, asset inflation is caused by massive artificial injections of money (a la quantitative easing).
"Mainstream actually educated economists are right, not people hyperventilating about money printing."
The thesis of your post is literally a fallacious argument - the argument from authority. The textbook definition.
Yes, the "experts" are always right, like the experts that ran LTCM, the hedge fund run by rocket scientists that crashed the economy (until being bailed out by the Fed) /s
I would go on with more examples of fallacious "argument from authority" logic gone wrong, but I don't have the time.
I didn't make an argument about education. I made a comment referencing mass financial and economic illiteracy in America.
An economic theory is not right or wrong, good or bad, or otherwise based what the "educated, mainstream experts" believe. The history of human knowledge is essentially a history of paradigms (sometimes temporarily useful) being proven completely wrong, with some non-mainstream ideas being proven right. QE and mainstream economics, in my opinion, will turn out the same way, and end up causing the destruction of arguably the wealthiest nation in human history.
It's only a "burn" if you actually think it's a legit argument. I was just pointing out that it is not.
"One of the great commandments of science is, "Mistrust arguments from authority." ... Too many such arguments have proved too painfully wrong. Authorities must prove their contentions like everybody else." - Carl Sagan
