May of 1943 was called Black May because so many U-Boats were sunk, 25% of the force.
The reason was a bunch of technologies coming together. New weapons like Hedgehog and new tactics. More escorts and better ones. The Mid-Atlantic gap was closed by B-24s, there were more escort carriers.
I thought the German subs used more sophisticated encryption and were more disciplined in operational procedure such that the subs were largely not decrypted by the Allies.
Supposedly the better question is why it took so long for an allied victory. Britain’s economic output was absolutely vast, and its colonies made it very powerful. Yet it still took the US industrial capacity coming online and a significant portion of the USSR’s population dying before victory.
It's a silly thing to say, because ship losses are largely driven by German submarines in the Atlantic and American submarines in the Pacific, which are about as disconnected as things get in WW2.
You can see clear trends in the data in each of those theatres, both of which turn drastically in the Allies favor later in the war. The main driver for that is American war materiel production, but there's also plenty of decisions in strategy, tactics, and weapons systems that are entirely different.
If you look at the graphs there is nothing like an 'inflection point' or qualitative change in the graph behaviour.
The Allied line goes slowly down and the Axis line goes slowly up. At one point they cross, but there's nothing particularly significant about that crossing point. Nothing happened in the month that they crossed other than the two numbers were equal momentarily.
Patent appeal for artificial neural network, the appellant argued that the ANN was self-trained and not directly programmed with detailed logical steps, thus, it shouldn't be considered a computer program under the exclusion.
I am not a patent lawyer but my understanding is that a patent requires that the application show that the invention is reproducible. And if it's reproducible then the logical steps must therefore be sufficiently detailed :/
Hmm, I read the article as explicitly calling out "clinical trials" (as referenced in the title and abstract) and it makes no reference research studies. I don't understand the distinction between "research studies" and "clinical trials", surely all research studies where an RCT is performed with real patients and real drugs is a clinical trial?
I meant “trials for research studies” as opposed to “trials for drug or device approval.”
The amount of record keeping and oversight of a drug approval trial is enormous (and as a consequence insanely expensive) — data handling, having disjoint groups at each stage handling and analyzing data, etc and detailed records of every manufacturing step — think ISO9000 on steroids.
Nobody would bother to go to that effort for a scientific exploration, nor should they. So the bar is much lower.
I am making no excuse for shoddy science! But it is quite unlikely for a licensed drug.
It feels as if there should be a PaaS alternative to hosting your own PyPI server (and I would gladly pay for one) but alternatives like AWS CodeArtifact require a lot of manual configuration. JFrog have the closest service that I can find, but you have to subscribe to their whole CI.
I was hoping that GitHub Packages would solve this issue (as they do for NPM, Docker etc.) but sadly this isn't going to happen.
As I understand it, Head is what you call someone that's leading a group of people and they don't have the on-paper experience to do it, or you don't want to give them the title for any other reason. Also why startups tend to have more "heads" of things and at some point shift to having VPs
This aligns with my experience. I used to work at a department that had a "Head". She never talked to anybody or delivered any tangible work. I still wonder what her real job was.
If you entire IT team is 40, it's plausible to assume that the entire security team is these 2 analysts and their sought-after boss.
Even if it's "a" head, why would anyone qualified for leading an infosec team be interested?
For the same reason that anyone works in the civil service. It's a very restrained pace of life, you literally have to count your hours and take time off to ensure you don't work more than 37.5 hours a week, there's flexibility to work from home and your working hours, the pension and the benefits are fantastic. If you live to work then this job isn't for you, but it's quite a nice job if you're not that invested in it.
> If you live to work then this job isn't for you, but it's quite a nice job if you're not that invested in it.
Seems like that would attract bullshitters who deliver the minimum they can get away with, and given it's the government and there will be no (skilled) oversight, they will get away with it and the mediocrity feedback loop continues.
Actually it tends to be the opposite, it ends up filled with highly qualified experts in their fields who are happier with a good work-life balance. Because it's government everything moves very slowly and there is very limited scope for advancement (the government doesn't grow like a company, and there's no outside competition so you can't jump to new jobs as much) so it's not a good place for bullshitters to thrive because you're going to be there a long time and if you get found out as a bullshitter no one will tkae you seriously. You can't just bullshit through a few years and then move to a different department or get a promotion, everything moves so slowly that if you start screwin things up people will actually notice (they won't fire you though).
I'm not sure this would apply to the near-poverty-level salary talked about here? It's one thing to give up the top-level salary for a smaller-but-still-comfortable one, but the one we're talking here is absolutely terrible (lookup taxes and the cost of living and housing especially in London)?
I'd expect only those who really have nowhere else to go to settle for this, which again implies lack of skill.
> if you get found out as a bullshitter no one will tkae you seriously
Unless everyone is a similar bullshitter, or you play the (office?) politics game properly to compensate for your lack of skill. If bullshitters were universally discredited everywhere like you say, politics as a job would disappear overnight.
If you're paid less, it generally means you're less useful to the society. They value you protecting the UK treasury less than they value you making silly landing pages. You can chill making landing pages just as well, just make them part-time.
It might represent your value in the free market in terms of economic utility, but that doesn't reflect your value to society. There are things in this world outside of pure economic measurement.
I'm not a marketing expert (though I do work with rare diseases).
But a good starting point might be to checkout https://www.rarebeacon.org/
There certainly is help and there are options, but as you understand finding and accessing them isn't always easy. Good luck on your journey
This looks very helpful. First time I heard about this organization. Apparently, they train patient groups like us. They even host their own drug repurposing conference. I'll signup on the email list and study their site. Thank you.
> There is a clear inflection point around March 1943: From this point onward, the Allied forces sank more ships every month than they lost.
Any idea what what happened early 1943? Was there a specific event that changed the direction, or is the balance point of slow attrition?