National median home price is $410k[1]. Texas is less than $300k[2]. Only thing that's unrealistic is most people who buy a house for $400k will probably get an FHA loan and put 3% down so will have a higher payment because of (1) mortgage insurance and (2) borrowing more money.
> Getting screwed in industry means you lose your right to an income and might never get it back.
Why is this? It really easy to get hired in industry after you've been fired from one job -- especially if you've been there for awhile. I've seen many postdocs or non-tenure-track professors forced entirely out of academia if their contracts aren't renewed. If they don't have skills valued by industry (not uncommon if you spent 5+ years post-PhD in academia), I've seen former colleagues never get a good job again.
This is a silly argument but I disagree. Seemed like a perfectly neutral statement to me, including "I insist on living in NYC because I think it's the best place to live"
I think this is really neat and I also like the HN tagline "learn computational science by tinkering with code" better than learning how to code and Data Science for Middle/High Schoolers.
I've been wanting to see something like this for a long time & think it's pretty neat!
I am really pleased Epic is conducting this lawsuit. Even if they lose the lawsuit, it seems likely they'll end up with at least a partial victory by shining light on Apple's practices.
Apple has been a great thing for the world but I find their App Store practices extremely distasteful.
It'll be harder for you than it would be for him but I still wouldn't discount it! Considering the alternative is (1) trying to get into a PhD program (might require a year or two of remedial classes with no guarantee of success) and then (2) spending 4-6 years doing a PhD, reaching out to the randos may well be much faster AND lowest risk.
If you're a software engineer, I'd venture a claim and say that the rando route will be easier. You have a valuable skillset researchers need -- you can code at a professional level. Use that to get your foot in the door!
I guess the question I have is "Did any *previous* research done by UMN successfully introduce bugs into the Linux Kernel git commit log?"
There are weasel words in this statement that make it unclear and the researchers have been really dishonest already. But! If it's true that their research has never made it out of email chains then it does seem like the reaction is a bit disproportionate to the damages here.
e: Not getting pulled into a maintainer tree isn't enough to be safe about what was posted to a kernel mailing list. People can (and testing scripts blindly do) grab and apply patches on the mailing list.
Much focus is on the 3 patches from the paper last year, but others have been submitted before and since by the same group, and some that have been found to be malicious did make it into the Stable branch: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/78ac6ee8-8e7c-bd4c-a3a7-5a90c7c...
I've been skeptical of the AZ vaccine for awhile. I don't know much about biology but I do know statistics. And many of their published results smelled of p-hacking[^1] by cherry-picking the best countries and the best (often accidental!) vaccination regime. Well credentialed people don't actively criticize it because despite those statistical issues, the vaccine is likely still 60-70% effective which is a big deal. But! If the stats side of the house is a clown show, it hurts my confidence in the entire house, especially when BioNTech and Moderna have been great in this respect.
[1]: Perhaps not in the typical sense of "getting a statistically significant result" but in the closely related sense of "getting a larger effect size
While I do agree with you a bit, I think the big problem with Astrazeneca is that people hated on it so much that it's banned in the US. This is despite the fact that statistically it is extremely likely to be both safe and 100ish% effective at preventing death.
If we could magically jump in a time machine and vaccinate the whole US with Astrazeneca last Feb, would we have had a pandemic? No. We would have had some cases, maybe a few deaths, but nothing resembling this year.
So I get it. You don't love the studies. I agree they aren't perfect. But I think it would be helpful if everyone who wanted to point a study flaw would end with a disclaimer: "But of course the FDA should instantly lift the ban on Astrazeneca, because such a ban is absurd."
In the US all medications must be approved by the FDA before they can be used; therefore, technically all medications are banned by default. Since the FDA has not approved the vaccine it remains banned.
Pending approval and banned have wildly different connotations and I honestly can't assume such a substitution was done in good faith. It's like saying an engaged couple is divorced because they're not currently married.
"It's like saying an engaged couple is divorced because they're not currently married."
The two are nothing alike because banned may have a different connotation for you but its use is proper by the denotation of the word. Your example is not correct by the common connotation or denotation of the word.
For those that down voted my answer I would like to point out that I wasn't the one to originally use the word "banned" to describe the status of the vaccine nor would I normally do so. I was attempting to explain the thinking behind someone else using it.
That is not the proper denotation of the word. The FDA has not placed any ban on the AstraZeneca vaccine. The FDA has not yet approved the vaccine, and there are various limitations on what can be done with a medicine prior to approval (note these limitations are on manufacture, importation, and marketing, not on taking the drug, you can easily and legally be prescribed and buy unapproved drugs), and approving the vaccine could be thought of as analogous in several ways to lifting a ban, but it is incorrect to say that there is a ban for the FDA to lift. The FDA can ban drugs, and there are many that it has, but AstraZeneca's vaccine is not one of them.
Likewise, an engaged couple is just as un-married as a divorced one, and there might be various analogues between a divorced couple getting remarried and an engaged couple being married for the first time, but it is still incorrect to say an engaged couple that has never been married should get remarried.
The definition of ban is "officially or legally prohibit". The use of the AstraZeneca vaccine meets that definition until action is taken by the FDA.
The definition of divorced is not un-married. It is "no longer married because the marriage has been legally dissolved". Unless the engaged couple was previously married to each other they don't meet that definition.
I think you're at risk of wanting to be more right, than advance the discourse. What can we say, who believe you used ban in a technically correct but misread and misreceived manner?
Try not doing this. Try to consider why another term might be better.
Yea I agree. It all relies on (2) but they do a very poor job explaining what exactly the simulation is. If there is a paper by McNight, it isn't cited and I can't find it. Can't find it on his webpage[0][1] or google scholar.
This is a non-trivial simulation so the details are really important! Shame they are nowhere to be found.
[1]: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MSPUS [2]: https://www.zillow.com/home-values/6915/san-antonio-tx/