You should really look Matt Might up. He was an entrepreneur while working on his PhD. While he was a CS professor he had a child who had an extremely rare genetic disorder. He pivoted his entire life and focused all of his energy on learning about his son's condition. Since then he has become the Director of the Hugh Kaul Precision Medicine Institute at the University of Alabama. Hardly a career of "wasted years" of an "entire life in academia".
> In 2012, four-year-old Bertrand Might became the first-ever patient diagnosed with a rare genetic disorder called N-glycanase (NGLY1) deficiency. The discovery of this condition and Bertrand's diagnosis allowed doctors to look for other children with the same genetic defect. Since then, more than 60 additional patients have been found.
> The disease affects every system of the body and is characterized by low muscle tone, seizures, developmental delays, and an inability to produce tears.
> Sadly, Bertrand passed away in October at the age of 12. Although his life was cut short, his legacy will benefit children around the world. Through their website, NGLY1.org, Bertrand's parents collect and share a wealth of research and family stories to help educate and inform the community. As more patients have been identified, it's become apparent that even though the same gene is deactivated in all of them, their symptoms and severity of disease vary widely.
I suspect it isn't legal at all! But it's not as though that's stopped cryptocurrency scammers before -- and there are so many things about the cryptocurrency ecosystem that are practically designed to help them get away with it.
Well, speaking for myself personally, I was around 11-13 when I first joined the scene. Right before the fall of the classical hacker collectives and old school zines.
It sounds to me like you were not, so I will give your unsubstantiated opinion the benefit of the doubt of not understanding the context or implications of Phrack and aforementioned Hacker Manifesto.
Seems the implementation is Haskell, would've been much cleaner in Ocaml. Appearently it's a grad coruse in functional algorithms but can't even see the time-complexity analysis of heapify.
> The programs in this book are written in Isabelle’s functional programming language
From what I can tell, Binomial Heaps also have a runtime analysis. Not sure what you’re referring to with “heapify.”
I would encourage others to ignore this snide comment. I have read other books from the authors, particularly Concrete Semantics, and it’s honestly incredible what can be achieved with Isabelle. Obviously it’s not going to be interesting if formal verification isn’t your thing, but if it is, the content is priceless.
Odds of death from AstraZenaca are 1 in 1 million. Let's take odds of the event of having serious complications to be 1/100,000 just to be more skeptical.
The odds that 5 people in a row have such serious side effect is 1/10^25. That is equivalent to tossing 83 coins in a row and getting all heads.
Which is more likelier. 1/10^25 or that you have false information regarding this. : )
I'm pro vaccine, and am convinced that the benefits of the vaccine absolutely eclipse the risks, but your math is so horrendously wrong here. Delete this.
Edit, here's some corrections:
This isn't 5 people in a row who had issues, it's 5 people within 4 nodes of distance in their social network. 4 nodes of distance is a lot of people, probably around 200,000 - 2,000,000.
The odds of having severe complications from the vaccine are about 1 in 100,000.
Therefore, everyone should expect to have 2-20 people within 4 nodes of their social network to have severe complications from the vaccine.
The mistake is not realizing the absolutely massive amount of people within 4 nodes of distance in your social network.
The other massive issue I see here is that there should also be somewhere around 500 covid deaths in the same pool of people that produced these 5 people with vaccine complications. The fact that they are focused on the 5 and not the 500 speaks heavily to their biases.
Keep in mind, all of this also assumes that what they're saying is 100% accurate, and these complications were definitely caused by the vaccine, and were not a coincidence. In truth, for every 1 person that has complications with the vaccine, 10-100x had the unlucky coincidence of something bad occurring that would have happened even if they hadn't gotten the vaccine.
You are wrong about what is meant by a "social circle". They are people that he socializes with.
Definition of social circle is "A social circle is a group of socially interconnected people". I doubt anyone would complain about having a small social circle if it contained 2M people. :)
Sure, he said that, but only one of the complications are actually IN his social circle, the rest are two or more steps removed.
"My dad's coworker" - 2 steps
"my wife's brothers" - 2 steps
"My daughter's bf's friends mom" - 4 steps
"A friend" - 1 step
He might have a small social circle, but even a small circle is going to explode exponentially when you start hoping outwards. By the 4th jump, you're going to start seeing extreme numbers regardless of how small your personal social circle is.
(using 4 deaths at 1e-6 odds, because it's simpler and still gives 10x better odds at 1e-24)
Taking 4 death row inmates, jabbing them with AstraZeneca and expecting all 4 of them to die.
What you have not calculated:
Jabbing 1e9 people, 10k of them developing serious issues (expected prior) and there being a multi-hop connection between 5 of them. Two of them actually being brothers (familial clustering), and some with issues likely more prevalent so not even from the 10k group (1/1e5 cutoff).
The math is monumentally off. It fixates on 5 specific people having issiues, instead of: There exist some 5 loosely connected people that some HN-er heard about, and probably hasn't even met all of them in person, especially the ones that died.
The implied qualification of - there exists a HN-er so divide by 1e9 to get odds - is nowhere close to accounting for the additional degrees of freedom from the social graph.
They are about learning and education though. How could they possibly not be. The other things like connections, socialising, getting drunk are just extra bonuses. This idea that universities don't provide any value to society and that they should be replaced by poorly structured YT videos with tons of mistakes in them has to go. Has no basis whatsoever.
