When I was in grad school, I was working on general game playing AI. Unfortunately, I was in a "pure logic" research group, founded on the old-school AI principles that believed AI could be derived from deterministic logic.
Of course, this limited the games that we could simulate to purely deterministic games (checkers, chess, go, etc.). Any games that included an aspect of chance required a hack like a "dice player" or a "deck player" that would add the random aspects of the game. Of course, this led to other problems, since the engines would try to calculate the current state of the game based on the "optimal" play of the random player.
This is a much more interesting approach, and I imagine will prove to be far more useful.
Seems like I was unclear - I'm saying that Trumps lawsuit is frivolous, and is evidence that he is meddling in the election, not that there is actually something suspect being done by the counters.
Botnets that were active in the months leading up to the election but that suddenly shut down. Anyone looking at that?
If Trump or Biden had outside (foreign) help from anywhere it is likely , given the porous nature of our election security that some of the external structures needed to make it work have been dismantled since they are no longer useful.
Maybe security researchers could look at known botnets or intrusions for clues to whether compromised networks aided anyone.
In fairness, there's already clear evidence of attempts to subvert the election via manipulation of the USPS. It's not really an 'extraordinary' claim to suggest that Trump might attempt to manipulate the vote via other means - although I do agree that evidence is required to make the assertion.
>In fairness, there's already clear evidence of attempts to subvert the election via manipulation of the USPS.
Yet you fail to provide said clear evidence.
There were a lot of nonsense allegations made which conflated delays in USPS parcel processing (volume skyrocketing because of COVID19) and flats processing (volume dropping for same reason, and COVID19-related absences), and related logistics adjustment (removing flats processing machines), and normal attrition/adjustment in USPS drop box locations, with "Trump is trying to stop the vote!" I wrote more about this at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24290622 .
The president himself has admitted that he wishes to starve the USPS to limit widespread mail in voting: https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-admits-he-wants-block-... . This in a pandemic where vote by mail is something any sane government should be supporting enthusiastically.
Many of the comments here seem to be missing the point. It is an object moving into the path of the car, and if the safety systems work as advertised, it should avoid that object. Whether it's a person, shopping cart, bike, go kart, etc. doesn't matter.
It's also worth saying that the human brain can almost instantly do a fight or flight calculation as to whether it's a moose or a plastic bag floating by taking into account the motion, and it's reflective properties etc.
This task clearly is very very hard to do, but tough shit: if you can't safely control a megajoule of kinetic energy coming down the road your computer shouldn't be given the benefit of the doubt.
NYC had only 20% prevalence in mid-June[1], after they had contained the initial outbreak[2]. Therefore, the drop in new cases is very unlikely to be from herd immunity, which would need prevalence to be in the 80% range.
The author seems to ignore that most people are interacting with far fewer people because they are working from home, kids mostly aren't in school, and our other interactions with people outside our household have been limited and altered to decrease the chances of transmission.
It's nice to think that some people had memory T-cells that could deal with the virus, and it seems some people do, but based on the original R0 numbers, it would be foolish to think that is the case for enough of the population to conclude that we've reached herd immunity.
The theory was that some large percentage of population is either immune or at least significantly more resistant to covid. Do once the initial 20% get it the other 50-% are resistant so you get your 70% number that way
Barring concrete evidence that is the case, it's a very dangerous assertion to make. It would also mean that the transmissibility of SARS-CoV-2 is much higher than we originally thought, amongst those without "natural immunity".
Even if it were the case that half the population was naturally immune, we would want to understand why. The leading explanation at the moment is T-cells and previous exposure to other coronaviruses. Problem is, there's a good chance that previous exposures would be less likely in certain populations, like children, which could be especially problematic as we're debating sending kids back to school.
At the very least, we need more data on T-cell prevalence/reactance to SARS-CoV-2 before we can jump to the conclusion that people are already immune.
But right now, it's far more likely that we've seen drops because of the drastic measures that have been taken and the changes in daily behavior across the population.
While kids are less likely to get sick from it (less likely doesn't mean zero cases or even deaths btw), they can sure as hell spread it. There was some research suggesting that they're spreading the virus as much as (or not detectably less than) adults [1]. Yet at the same time, there are also some indications that kids might be less likely to become infected [2]. How that will affect school reopenings is anyone's guess.
It's still a stretch to say that the virus is "harmless" to children.
But that's beside the point. The real point about children is that they can spread the virus just as well, even when they don't get sick - especially since it's also really hard for at least smaller children to keep distance or wear masks.
Also, the JHU map is a poor indicator, as they are clearly basing the colors on suspect data, as in this case in Nebraska, which apparently had negative new cases yesterday.
Oh sometimes that happens because states make mistakes in reporting and want to correct them. I would guess that's the case here. It also happens in the other direction- big spikes are sometimes a backlog of cases all reported at once.
While true, that map and a photo of an outdoor space with people in it are poor pieces of data to hinge your entire argument on.
You completely failed to take into account people working from home, schools delaying opening and not having been in session since March or April, and all of the other measures that have been put in place to decrease transmission (masks, barriers, decreased social interactions, restaurant closings, other indoor spaces being closed, etc, etc, etc).
Your conclusion is flawed because you left all of these factors out of your analysis.
I don't think this could explain the huge jump in cases and then decline post-reopening in Fl,Az, and LA. They aren't being more careful now than they were in early June. Disney world is open, people are outright refusing to distance or wear masks, the beaches are packed and yet we are seeing a drop in cases.
> They aren't being more careful now than they were in early June.
Source? This is a significant claim. Early June was a low point in cases, hospitalizations and deaths. Lots of states were at peak reopening around then, as things seemed to be on the right track.
For example, bars opened in early June in Florida. They closed on June 26th after cases started spiking.
Louisiana was similar. The state started reopening May 15th. Later in June, bars were then closed back down again, and a mask mandate went into effect.
In Arizona, the story is similar, with gyms, bars and movie theaters shutting back down in July after having opened in May.
What sure seems to be the pattern is: things open up, cases rise, things close back down, cases drop. I'm not so sure that your "they aren't being more careful now than they were in early June" statement is accurate, and I think this is causing you to misattribute the cause of the drops in cases.
Mmmm You can see the timeline of orders that were put into place and the correlation. Here is Florida https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/data/state-timeline/new-confirme.... No mask mandate at all. Disney world is open. Beaches are open. The only order was bars are shut down. Without other distancing or masks, it's hard to believe that would stop spread.
Beaches are outdoors and while they make look crowded, people often maintain more than 6 feet between each other at the beach anyway.
The numbers are going down in Florida because people finally got a taste of how serious it is and changed their behavior.
The fact that you keep downplaying behavioral changes and completely ignoring other changes like people working from home and schools being out shows you are wedded to your conclusion. Unfortunately, it is fundamentally flawed.
You've made a extraordinary claim, the onus is on you to back it up with extraordinary evidence. A couple graphs of new cases going down and a photo of a boardwalk (where nearly everyone is in a mask) is not sufficient to support your claim.
Your observations are quite subjective and flawed. Yes, Disney world is open, that is hardly the end of it. Is it the same Disney World as before the pandemic? It’s not a binary situation. You can’t just point out that because a place is now open, instead of closed, therefore there are no precautions being taken. We can be debate whether they are taking enough precautions, but you can’t just use this the way you have in this article.
This whole article is just a gut check without real evidence.
In just this list, we're up to mask mandates that cover counties that account for 10 million people, 47% of Florida's population, and accounting for the densest population centers. A number of additional counties also enacted mask mandates, but it got a bit tedious listing them all out.
In other words, in the June-July period, mask mandates were enacted for a majority of the population of Florida.
In another comment, I critiqued this piece as being a shallow analysis. Your comment here is an example of that.
I also took a roadtrip across the northeast a month ago so I saw a lot of how careful people were being. Ocean City, NJ was packed and almost no one was wearing masks. The upper east side was packed in NYC. I got a chicken sandwich at an indoor take out place where the guy serving me had one glove on and gave me the sandwich with the hand without the glove. Central park was full of people not wearing masks. Fireworks and protests all night. The argument that people are taking this seriously is just not true in NY and NJ. I can't imagine Florida is better than that.
I agree that i haven't quantified how careful people are being though. There has to be a way to do this. I know there was some drone plan to see how many masks were being worn in parts of the country. It might be worth getting some numbers for this.
And even if mask laws are lifted and infection rates continue going down, it does not show that masks are ineffective nor that the OP was correct. After a mask mandate, some people will continue wearing masks and social distancing. As with immunity, the efficacy is in the numbers, with a critical mass necessary to protect the "herd".
So this is a good point. I was just talking with a colleague about this. Some of the herd immunity models take factors like how mobile people are into account. It seems like masks could be a factor in the models of herd immunity. This might be a semantic argument. If population characteristics such as age are part of herd immunity (which is a moving target depending on population), then mask wearing could be considered a population characteristic and included in the model. This would net "drop" herd immunity levels.
The distinction comes down to factors that change (behaviors, mandates, regulations, etc.) and those that don't (age, gender, etc.).
Saying we've reached herd immunity given behavioral changes is largely meaningless, as most people do not want to continue these behavioral changes indefinitely. One of the biggest changes that you failed to acknowledge is that people are not in contact with nearly as many people in their day to day life as they were before. Working from home, kids not in school, limited social interactions, etc.
It's not herd immunity if a return to previous behaviors negates the immunity.
What's going to be interesting is: after coronavirus is over and we're down to non pandemic levels of infections in the states, restrictions are lifted, and people start going about their pre-pandemic business, I wonder what the explanation will be as to why there's a permanent immunity.
How long will people continue to flog the 'people are continuing to be responsible' horse?
What will it take to finally accept that there's a physiological immunity taking place giving herd immunity?
Behavior is a variable that can and should be included in a herd immunity model. The percent immunity needed to achieve Herd immunity will change with behavior. That doesn't negate that it's happening. Louisiana and Florida are pretty much open and seeing a drop in cases. Bars aren't open indoors- but I think we can live with that for a little while?
In Miami-Dade County in Florida, it's not only bars that are closed but all indoor dining is not allowed. Restaurants had opened for dining for a short while but that was banned again in July. And masks are required in public everywhere, even outdoors. And a strict countywide curfew has been in place since July.
> Back in February, Lipsitch gave a very rough estimate that, absent intervention, herd immunity might happen after 40 to 70 percent of the population had been infected.
Which is actually a mischaracterization of what the previous article[1] said:
> Lipsitch predicts that within the coming year, some 40 to 70 percent of people around the world will be infected with the virus that causes COVID-19.
At no point does he mention herd immunity. So, no, he's not saying herd immunity at 40%.
It's very hard to trust these low prevalance numbers when, for example, I know a few people who are close friends with people in medical fields who tested positive but they themselves didn't get tested but had mild symptoms. I myself had mild symptoms that I'm 99% sure is covid and didn't get tested.
Just because you and your friends weren't tested, doesn't mean the statistics are invalid. The link above was from random antibody testing and has a high confidence interval.
I've been sick twice during this time. Thought it had to be COVID, but two PCR tests and an antibody test all came back negative. Maybe the tests are flawed, sure, but it's far more likely I just had something else.
CDC Data from mid June had NYC at only 20% prevalence. Considering their low new daily cases since then, it's hard to believe they are anywhere near 68%.
So, I think the proposed math is something like: 1/3rd of infected don't show antibodies so that 20% means 30% were infected. Another study showed pre-existing T cell reactivity (maybe immunity?) in 40% of people, so if you combine those you're at 70%.
I find it hard to believe, with the R0 numbers we were seeing initially, that 40% had a significant level of immunity. If the numbers were that high, then R0 among those without memory T-cell immunity would have been significantly higher, which suggests that the level of exposure/immunity necessary for herd immunity to set in would be significantly higher as well.
What you're saying makes sense. Looking at some tables of it, it seems like if we imagine it in a naive population having a 50% higher reproduction number, it seems like it only bumps the herd immunity number by about 10% because it is such a high proportion already, if I'm understanding the charts right. It isn't clear if the numbers come together, but it does make me wonder if it could be close.
68% tested positive at a clinic in one neighborhood. Getting tested, without proper controls, is highly subject to self-selection bias. People were sick, couldn't get a test at the time, want to know if it was COVID, go in for an antibody test later. The people who were healthy, unless selected for a prevalence study, would much less likely to be tested in the first place.
Even in your first link, the highest percent positive is the Bronx reporting 33%. Not sure where you're getting 51% from, but it very much seems like you're trying to cherry pick data to support your argument.
Seroprevalence studies[1] in Italy, France, and Spain indicated we were a very long way off form herd immunity. They were in the range of 11-15%, where herd immunity would only start kicking in at about 70%. Based on cases per capita, the US might be 2-3 times higher than western Europe, but not yet at 70%.
I think the flaw in the piece is the author greatly underestimates the impact of the drastic measures we've taken to get those trends down. A lot of people are working from home, kids largely aren't back in school, and many of our other contact points outside of our households have been modified to minimize the risk of transmission. Seeing what happened to Israel when they reopened schools does not bode well for the US. [2]
Edit: NYC had ~20% prevalence in mid-June [3], after they had come back down from their peak. They've had many more cases per capita than anywhere else in the US, but their new cases have been flat since then, meaning prevalence has not increased significantly. Prevalence elsewhere in the US is likely in the 5-10% range.
1. Online learning is a poor substitute for classroom learning.
2. Online learning is much harder on parents and kids.
3. We're in the middle of a pandemic, in a country that has handled it very poorly.
4. Israel tried opening schools in May, when their daily new cases were at an all time low. New cases skyrocketed after opening schools [1], with nearly 50% of new cases being traced back to schools[2].
5. Closing schools in the spring is estimated to have saved 40,000 deaths in the US[3]. At that time new daily cases were significantly lower than they are now.
Unfortunately, classrooms undo a lot of the measures that have kept new daily cases from going significantly higher. They create contacts between families that would not have been in contact otherwise, and as new data comes out, it's clear that children are just as contagious as adults.
With what we know, as hard as it is, I don't see how we can proceed with opening schools until new daily cases are much more contained. The alternative is to have a massive spike in new cases, have schools close again, and be in the same position with online learning, but with many, many more cases out there.
Evaluating mail delivery services and integrating with one; going through all API handlers to check that they handle the extra "signed up but email still unconfirmed" status the right way; handlers for resending email confirmations; the password reset flow. A lot of papercuts.
Oh, and later on — having to debug email delivery issues, which always happen eventually.
This is why adding another third-party auth option is much easier than adding an email signup flow.
An alternative is the "modern" email flow where you just get a sign-in email every single time you want to login, but that's meh. I'd rather have a proper "classic" email signup flow.
All this said, I admit that email signup is one of the basic features, and we're missing it. I want to have email signup too. I just don't think it's as easy (or even /almost/ as easy) as third-party auth, and the rest is a question of priorities.
There is a reason entire companies exist to solve this. Properly implementing your own login creates a lot of wasted development time, especially when OAUTH2 is an industry standard.
> This is a topic that I've spent a great deal of time thinking about, because we happen to run a site chock full of user generated questions and answers. The last thing I want to do is exploit Stack Overflow users for corporate gain, even accidentally. That's horrible.
Jeff Atwood had principles, which is why the current morally bankrupt leadership wants to erase him. Stack would have been in a much better place if he’d been left in charge.
Of course, this limited the games that we could simulate to purely deterministic games (checkers, chess, go, etc.). Any games that included an aspect of chance required a hack like a "dice player" or a "deck player" that would add the random aspects of the game. Of course, this led to other problems, since the engines would try to calculate the current state of the game based on the "optimal" play of the random player.
This is a much more interesting approach, and I imagine will prove to be far more useful.