Well, if that’s the case you do the job in the way you yourself judge best. Maybe that tool is good at some tasks and you apply it to that. Bill Gates will be sad for a couple months and then likely forget about the expectations which had been set and you yourself got a stable job with a safe position for years to come.

No, you go to your manager and be like: your machine to make C code into rust code does not work. If you want to keep the pace of 1M loc per month and keep your boss happy I need double pay and 10 people working on it at all time.

You can move to a smaller city, at which point using public transport without internet is not so complex. When you have 10 bus lines it is fairly simple to know which goes where.

I guess the size is good to me for reading. I guess the kindle and kobo I used to have were even smaller than that. For reading books that’s quite good to me and I never felt I needed something larger.

However, when I tried to read PDFs I had lots of problems. The readers either would show the full A4 page in the screen, which would make it unreadable, or show just a piece of the page and it would then be difficult to pan. I remember I had tried using some tools which would break up the PDF pages into pages which would be visualizable in such a screen, but that did not work too well especially when reading articles with two column layouts.

Ideally articles would be available as ePub, but that’s quite rare. The main point would be: if I get one such tool to read articles I can dedicate it to just that. But, I need it to be easy for such purpose: I don’t want to be panning up and down a page all the time. I don’t know whether that is possible and how that could work however, because indeed resizing is not one of the objectives of PDF.

Well, in that case they’re overstating their capabilities. Which is not too surprising.

You seem confused, I did read the whole article and in fact that excerpt is not from the article but rather from the official bandin.org website which is referenced in the same article.

While they reference that page as source, and the page has clear points for more or less everything discussed in the article, they appear to disregard that.

It is a major breach of scientific ethics to withhold an intervention that has been proven safe and effective. “It’s highly unethical to choose to give a vaccine to some children but not others,” Offit said.

Clearly explained that all children will get the vaccine.

Yamey noted: “There’s already an RCT [randomized, controlled trial] showing superior outcomes with the birth dose, so why is another one needed?”

The trial does not focus on that, that is an already clear point. They’re focusing on secondary health effects the vaccine may produce.

The study does not appear to be looking at whether the vaccine is more effective at birth, which Jacobs said was “concerning” as “nowhere in this do they say that they’re going to study the efficacy of the vaccine itself.”

No, the vaccine is effective and that’s been widely shown in the past. No need to make a new trial for that.

The whole article is just a couple people worried about this study mainly because they are afraid the results of such study will be used by the US government to decrease the application of hepatitis vaccination.

“Because Robert F Kennedy Jr is an anti-vaccine zealot, he will somehow contort that study to look like the hepatitis B birth dose causes harm”

Financing of this kind of studies is normal. The whole article is painting this as uncommon and manipulated, however there is nor any proof of that nor any reason to show that could be true. The whole article is based off of speculation and false allegations. I’m not American myself and thus I do not care too much about your personal worries with this Kennedy, if you write an article regarding a problematic clinical trial please make the article about a problematic clinical trial and not about speculations of a manipulation of the plausible results which may be obtained through such a trial.

The article incorrectly depicts the trial setting and does not address what the problems with the trial are. Now regarding your reply, please rather than only reading the whole article; maybe also try to understand what it means and where they got their information from.

If you like we can discuss about this, I’m open to that, but I don’t really want to waste my time. My original comment was just to advise readers to focus a bit more: I opened the webpage of the trial for you and gave you the idea that the article is not correctly describing what it is about. What you do with that information is up to you.

Do not worry, such ethical considerations will be considered and evaluated by the ethics committee of the hospital. That will generally start with a prolonged interview to the parents, to understand how they met and how they decided to procreate, followed by the behavioural analysis of the patents during a baseball match. All the results will be analyzed to determine if the genetic engineering is an ethical choice.

Hello there, just scrolling through and I saw your comment. You seem to know a bit about this topic. I’m currently thinking of buying a reader as I lost mine some time ago. I used a kobo and a kindle in the past and didn’t see much difference. However, this thing about reading papers seems really cool. I have tried in the past reading PDFs on those readers without much success.

Do you think you have good options for reading articles/manuals? Consider I end up printing about 50 pages a day in articles I read. If I can turn that into something digital that’d be cool.

I mean, if this is true and it works it is not too far fetched. You’d mostly be checking that tests still make sense and that they pass.

Microsoft scientists have worked on a tool that automatically converts some C code to Rust.

This is all good, but give us the insult now: I just got a Jewish Asiatic mexican lesbian with African origins to deal with right now.

Then again, if it is malware you’re worrying about I don’t really see how that could help. If they’re exfiltrating stuff they’re likely doing it on port 80 or 22. By blocking other ports you may prevent them from spawning a client for a command centre of a bonnet or something like that, but that would also be often done through port 80 or 22.

But well, if you do want to block everything going outside that you did not specifically allow your approach is correct: deny everything by default and allow just what you need. I’d open as much software as I need and use ps to check all the ports they are using and allow them.

I’m not sure I really follow: what is the purpose of blocking outbound traffic on a system you control? I guess the main point is in case of infection from malware you’d be blocking their traffic. But malware will most probably be using port 80 or 22. Otherwise I guess you could install some software which you wish to use offline and not communicate outside, for which I’d just block that door or execute it in an isolated container or one of those systemd traps.

Feels more like a pain if this is a computer you use. I guess this is doable on a server as more or less you know what will be running there, but every time you install something you’ll have to check all ports it needs and go into iptables to edit the config.

Don’t be too hopeful, it will probably be the upgrade to Debian 14 in 2030. And the issue will probably be: yes, you need to change the repo and then full-upgrade.

Chemical weapons appear as a much better option than viruses. Enemy is there, drop a nervine agent and everyone is dead. Wait for a while and you’re free to advance.

Viruses in much more difficult to operate: infect someone somehow - I guess a bomb or something like that could be used as well. Wait several months so that enemy actually gets infected on large scale, but not too long because most of them won’t be dying anyway and soon back to battlefield. In the meantime vaccinate the whole of your invasion army. Start producing massive quantities of vaccines just in case it spreads to your own country somehow and you’ll have to treat your own population.

Assuming you were able to create both the virus and the vaccine within the period the war lasted, it may give you some bit of advantage during a period of 1/2 months or something like that. Good enough if you’re able to win the war in such period, but if you’ve got that kind of money to spend I’m sure you’ve got way more efficient options.

I work in a hospital, on the way to work and on the way back I often stop by picking mushrooms. The situation you described is not unlike my ordinary life.

All children are provided hepatitis B vaccine at 6, 10 and 14 weeks of age as a part of the current vaccination program. Half of the participants receive an additional hepatitis B vaccine dose at birth that they would not otherwise have received.

I don’t really see the problem with this. The study was approved by Guinea-Bissau ethics committees.

It is true that they do not clearly specify what the objective of the trial is and what specific parameters will be recorded and how they will be analyzed. But I’d imagine they’ll do that before starting the trial and have the protocol somewhere around currently getting worked on.

I don’t understand what this has to do with Robert F Kennedy or the US vaccination programme.

That is actually one of my main uses of mail, and I do really appreciate them.

Regarding important things, I live in a foreign country and when I have to vote for my government I get sent a letter, I vote and send back the letter. If the country I lived in removed mail I would not be able to vote in this way.

Are you willing to give up the pamphlet with all current discounts in the supermarkets nearby just because the government doesn’t want to mail you anymore? Joking, but still: I’m sure mail is still required for a variety of reasons.

Thanks for sharing, I’ll be looking into this and try to understand how it works, as well as if I can dump some articles from my field into it. I guess a seedbox more could probably help.

Even in the most basic research having an hypothesis is important, even just to say “I was completely wrong, but in the end extremely lucky and found something I didn’t expect nobody cares about”.

Hypothesis Aerodynamics experimentation does not damage internal organs of dogs.

Conclusions: Our findings suggest that wind tunnels are not dangerous to the well being of dogs. Such findings open new research opportunities in the field of dog aerodynamics.