I have had the misfortune of having to get D&B numbers (for various Apple things). I believe is the source for lead lists where you start to get dozens to text and phone spam calls per day. Do not pay hundreds of dollars for this if you can at all avoid it.
Definitely avoid unless you are distributing a consumer application through the dominant app stores (App Store and Google Play) ~globally, in which case you may not be able to avoid (or avoiding will be just as much work).
Google and Apple require it for lots of mobile apps targeting certain consumer segments because some countries (eg: Brazil, IIRC? don't quote me on that) have chosen to use D&B as a qualified unique identifier of business legitimacy and it requires exposing personal information of your company's leadership to them.
I was just dropping my kids off at their elementary school in Santa Monica, but not at Grant Elementary where this happened.
While it's third-hand, word on the local parent chat is that the parent dropped their kid off on the opposite side of the street from Grant. Even though there was a crossing guard, the kid ran behind a car an ran right out in to the street.
If those rumors are correct, I'll say the kid's/family's fault. That said, I think autonomous vehicles should probably go extra-slowly near schools, especially during pickup and dropoff.
At some point children are capable of pursuing Darwin Awards. Parents may enable this, but ultimately if one’s child does something stupid contrary to one’s guidance and restrictions, they may end up with a Darwin for it. Two hundred years ago the child mortality rate was half, as in you lost one child per two, and most of those were not the fault of the child or parents. Society for quite some years has been pushing that down, to the point that a near-death involving a neglectful parent and a witless child is apparently (?) newsworthy — but the number of deaths will never reach zero, whether humans or robots or empty plains and blue skies. There will always be a Veruca Salt throwing themselves into the furnace no matter how many safety processes we impose onto roads, cars, drivers, and/or robots.
If you want to see an end to this nonsensical behavior by parents, pressure your local city into having strict traffic enforcement and ticketing during school hours at every local school, so that the parent networks can’t share news with each other of which school is being ‘harassed’ today. Give license points to vehicles that drop a child across the street, issue parking tickets to double parkers, and boot vehicles whose drivers refuse to move when asked. Demand they do this for the children, to protect them from the robots, if you like.
But.
It’ll protect them much more from the humans than from the robots, and after a few thousand rockets are issued to parents behaving badly, you’ll find that the true threat to children’s safety on school roads is children’s parents — just as the schools have known for decades. And that’s not a war you’ll win arguing against robots. (It’s a war you’ll win arguing against child-killing urban roadway design, though!)
The US commercial aviation industry did not get to its excellent safety record by simply shrugging and accepting a “no-fault accident”.
There are always systemic factors that can be improved, for example working on street design to separate dangerous cars from children, or transportation policy by shifting transportation to buses, bikes, and walking where the consequences of mistakes are significantly reduced.
Cars are the #2 killer of children in the US, and it’s largely because of attitudes like this that ignore the extreme harm that is caused by preventable “accidents”
"No fault" does not mean "no cause" and air crash investigations always focus on causes, not fault. When you understand causes, you can think about how to prevent them happening again.
There was a version of streptococcus mutans developed that didn’t produce tons of lactic acid and would have pretty much ended tooth decay back in 2000. Iirc, it was built to outcompete the regular bacteria too. As far as I can tell there’s been no progress in commercializing this-—I assume because of the cost and complexity of FDA approval.
No way?! Great find, dude. I wonder if anyone can comment about it specifically or if it might be worthwhile to start a thread soliciting users experience...
I've never tried it but I see cause for skepticism: the claim is that these beneficial bacteria will out-compete the harmful ones. But if that's true, why would it take 30 days for them to get established? One shot of Listerine to kill what's there now, then one batch of the good critters to get them started, and, if the claims are true, you should be set for life, right? So something doesn't add up.
Doesn't your body have a reservoir of your microbiome throughout your body (like in the appendix or whatever)? Is it that far-out that some of the mouth stuff makes it there as well? Keep in mind, these bacteria have probably adapted and co-evolved over our development as a species, they must be fairly hardy and well-positioned
Not qualified to argue with your very logical position here but I feel like it might be a longer-term transition and there might still be hold-outs if its only a one-and-done deal like you've described.
It totally makes sense as a real-life conspiracy theory too, although I'm not super familiar with the ADA's exploits. Obviously, dentists have an enormous amount to lose if something like this ever escaped the laboratory, so to speak.
That's true, but if it really were the case that you could stop cavities and gum disease by popping a pill that was already on the market I don't see any way they could stop it. I also think that there are a few ADA members who actually care about people's dental health, and if they thought that there was a conspiracy to suppress such a thing, they would have said so.
Like I said, nothing would make me happier than to be proven wrong about this. But right now my money is on the things-that-sound-too-good-to-be-true-usually-are theory.
It could be the case that these specific strain of good bacteria does not last long enough in the mouth for some reason. For example they could mutate or they might not have the capability to attach itself to the tooth surface for long enough.
In their website they claim that within 30 days the good bacteria will outcompetes the bad one. I don't think you can stop taking the tablets after those 30 days completely to keep tits benefits. Those bacteria might die down over a course of a few months for various reasons.
What do you think "outcompete" means in the context of evolutionary biology? Something is going to set up shop in your mouth; it's just too attractive an environment to be left fallow. Whatever that ends up being without intervention has by definition outcompeted all the other contenders. So if the good bacteria don't persist, then by definition they have not "outcompeted" the competition.
Guess the main point is the environment itself changes depending on what you do and what you eat. So you need to constantly resupply the initial good bacteria for them to keep holding on
Is there any reason you can't just propogate and cultivate them in a seperate breeding receptacle for an unlimited supply like people do with SCOBY or whatever for making sourdough and kombucha?
Is there any reason you can't just propogate and cultivate them in a seperate breeding receptacle for an unlimited supply like people do with SCOBY or whatever for making sourdough?
Zinc starves bacteria via a variety of means, and a high zinc intake will see high levels of zinc in the saliva and in the teeth, helping to keep bacterial levels down, but RDA's are highly conservative amounts for young healthy people, not old or ill people, which then makes some RDA's woefully inadequate.
Very few products kill 100% of bacteria, even deionised water will still have less than 25 colony forming bacteria per litre in it, although by virtue of being deionised has less in it to help bacteria get established.
Acidifying water will make it harder for pseudomonas to get established.
But when scientists say they are searching for life on mars or an asteroid, they are referring to bacteria, mainly the bacillus aka rod shaped bacteria as it can survive in radiation 100,000 times more than humans can survive in, and extreme cold like space, so global warming and melting ice at the poles presents new viral and bacterial risks.
Diet can also reduce the body's own immune response, for example calcium disodium ethylene diamine tetra-acetate aka Calcium disodium EDTA found in a variety of products from makeup to food like Mayonnaise chelates zinc reducing zinc's ability to activate GPR39.
Zinc's inability from deficiency or chemicals like the one mentioned above, from being able to activate GPR39, creates a myriad of problems in human health, including reducing saliva production. [1]
There isnt anything wrong with using bacteria to out compete other bacteria, but adaptions occur.
Phages are viruses that kill bacteria, something the Russians developed decades ago as the West when with antibiotics[2]. I would also consider Georgia as a medical destination for some conditions as they are superior to Western options. Some of their doctors do scoff at the Western doctors!
You can find millions if not billions of phages in just 1ml of seawater [3]. The problem with phages is they take time to develop, so you could be dead before the bacterial strain is identified and a phage is developed, so antibiotics are the fastest immediate response, but the gold standard is antibiotics until the phages have been developed and then used as a part of a treatment program, but you'll only get this from very expensive private healthcare.
Of course drinking seawater when one goes surfing is a bit of pot luck, or lucky dip with regards to consuming phages. It makes me wonder if Surfers Against Sewage know about phages. [4]
So lots of different ways to tackle health problems, but medical experts cant always use them due to cost or simply lack of knowledge.
I've always had this idea for something you could put on your teeth before you start eating like those trays people use for whitening but obviously more robust. I wonder why nobody has ever pursued this angle, stop the food from ever touching your teeth in the first place. I'm sure someone will be able to shoot this down in 3 seconds but I fail to see why one couldn't simply create a flexible barrier to prevent all these problems. Sort of like a dental dam for eating
I wonder if there is anything more to the reason that it has never gained any real traction? A lot of groups would stand to lose a lot of money if something like this become used by even half the population. This would mean a massive reduction in purchases of many dental products, visits to dentists, procedures needed by dentists, etc.
You're trying to make a joke here, but please do some reasearch about the dental lobbying groups. The ADA is no joke.
What OP is implying is not really tinfoil hat material. As one example, one of the reasons parroted (by democrats, actually) that we won't have universal healthcare ever, is that it's going to cause thousands of health insurance jobs to dissapear.
Then why doesn't a country with a nationalized health care system do it? There are incentives in other countries that would encourage this, if it were possible.
My nationalized healthcare comment is unlreated to the existence of the dental industry in its current form. It was just an example to point out that protecting jobs is something our elected leaders are worried about when lobbyists are paying up (they're not really that worried about jobs dissapearing due to automation or mergers or monolopies, etc..)
Regardless of the type of healthcare (nationalized, private, etc..) the dental health industry is still getting paid, the only diffference is who is doing it. The original statement was that a breakthrough in preventive medicine will destroy a large portion of the bread and butter of the dental health industry, which will lead to it being only a fraction of what it is today. Industries fight tooth and nail to keep growing. Guess what they do when their existence is threatened.
> Regardless of the type of healthcare (nationalized, private, etc..) the dental health industry is still getting paid, the only diffference is who is doing it.
No, one difference is who is doing it, another one is the sums being payed. That's why the dental industry in countries with national health care fight to stay out of the general health system. The lucrative compensation of the practitioners lead people to want to go specifically for that. If it were part of national health care it would cease to be sure path to accumulating loads of money, the incentive to become a dentist as well as the power of current practitioner will be similar to that of family doctors or orthopedic specialist. Spoiler alert: in countries with national health care their status is higher then the status of teachers in national school systems, but not by much.
I'm not saying there isn't such a country, but the countries with national health care that I know about don't or don't fully cover dental health (presumably because one can live in perfect health with a rotting mouth and not due to a strong dental healthcare lobby /s).
How oh how did our ancestors survive without the dental lobby!? How did the children with their rotten ass teeth consume all their goodies and sodie pops with such poorly functioning teeth!? Its a complete mystery, one I'm sure is lost to the sands of the 1950s.
> ...there was never yet philosopher that could endure the toothache patiently (shakespeare)
Why defer to a baseless "probably" when you can easily check what is known about the past? Wikipedia doesn't put the blame on refined sugar but rather point to farming as to what correlated with dental issues. Are you familiar with the barber's pole? that's the sign for the location where our ancestors went to be relived from owning teeth.
I appreciate your response. I almost didn't even make the original comment because I knew I would get 'conspiracy nut' responses, as I did lol I promise, I'm the furthest from a conspiracy nut.
You think that the governments of the world with much poorer people wouldn't jump on something like this? Improving dental health dramatically improves outcomes all across the board.
If something works, someone, somewhere in the world would start using it. Hell, people are willing to use stuff that is flat out harmful simply because some people on the internet said so.
The big issue with bio things is that the human organism has a lot of variation and a lot of cures sorta work for some people some of the time. Consequently, a high enough bar to get FDA clearance has to be significantly strong.
(Two good recent examples: A woman died from oxalate overload from drinking green smoothies and Vitamin C and anti-oxidants can spur cancer growth. Does that mean that everybody should stop drinking green smoothies and taking Vitamin C? Obviously no. But it shows that humans vary and that things aren't always straightforward.)
What's more likely, vast cabal conspiring against competing product, or competing product just doesn't work as well as claimed? There aren't nearly as many grand conspiracies out there as there should be.
My naïve thought, assuming it was effective, could outcompete acid spewing species, and you had dosed a handful of the population: why would it not have been able to spread through the population?
Inoculated person X kisses two people, they go on to kiss two people, etc. Probably too simple a model, but I assume that kissing spreads all manner of microorganisms. How much do you need for the bacteria to take hold?
> Looking, you’re right. Those are regulated at the state level. But it does look like pretty much every state has a law.
The 1st state I checked to validate that, my own, doesn't. The state level laws much like the GINA act only cover employment and health insurance. There is a newly enacted law preventing consumer genetic testing companies from disclosing results without consumer consent, but nothing stopping an insurance company requiring consent for access or requiring their own genetic testing before issuing life or disability insurance. Based upon this I'm not comforted by the assertion that "pretty much every state has a law".
> preventing consumer genetic testing companies from disclosing results without consumer consent
Even if you didn’t consent, genetic genealogy can still be used to triangulate your genome from relatives of yours who do consent. This is still a manual process for now, but it’s very likely that a CODIS-like system to automate DNA triangulation for purposes of fingerprint search will be implemented soon. Only a small step from there to insurance companies being able to deny you coverage based on an “sub-clinical family history” of something.
My previous comment was more about not trusting the comment about state level protection than having an issue with that lack of protection. Life and disability insurance companies already deny coverage based upon "sub-clinical family history" of conditions. They do so based upon gathered family medical histories. They will also deny you coverage based upon a required medical examination. What is the issue with adding genetic screening to the list of tools?
> Life and disability insurance companies already deny coverage based upon "sub-clinical family history" of conditions. They do so based upon gathered family medical histories.
The term "sub-clinical" means "something that has not yet caused you any problems bad enough that you mention them to a doctor, and therefore never makes it into your medical history; and which also would not yet be revealed by a medical examination."
To be clear, a "sub-clinical family history", then, isn't information about your sub-clinical conditions attained from medical data about your family's clinical interactions (that would be a regular family history!); rather, it's information about your clinical or sub-clinical conditions, deduced through triangulation of your (potentially quite distant!) relatives' sub-clinical conditions, which were in turn discovered through genetic screening of those distant relatives, that they themselves did consent to, as some presumed-boilerplate when submitting their DNA to ancestry websites and the like.
There is currently no way for insurance companies to be aware of your "sub-clinical family history" besides just asking you. With automated triangulated genetic screening, they would have a way to get around asking you.
Which makes the process of dismantling or avoiding the regulation actually slightly easier because all you need is one state to defect in order to cause a precedent which then allows for a regulatory cascade.
It’s almost deterministic at this point, and you see how they did it for clawing back reproductive rights.
And this issue is obscure enough for a small enough current population, that you would not be able to actually build a robust counter protest in any kind of sensible way.
So really all it would take is a handful of just Millionaires to care about this problem to throw — let’s call it $10 million - at lobbying in order to make it go their direction.
(downvote all you want but look at the supreme court, Dobbs, and the inability of the democratic party to hold on to power at all--at some point the excuses need to end and the party needs to be judged on the basis of where we've actually wound up)
They also take into account smoking. Playing devil's advocate if a car insurance company can charge you a higher premium because you are male why shouldn't a life insurance company use your genetic code?
The change you describe from N+1 to N+2 wasn’t made to defeat your hack. It was made because we got lots of complaints that people thought the filters were buggy/broken when they saw people who didn’t match their filters and because they were seeing irrelevant people, lowering the chance of a match. The set of people who already liked you were being served out of a different service than regular recommendations and it was, iirc, just a Redis list until fixed. (More generally, we never purposely made the recommendation algo worse to increase boosts or because people would only stay if they didn’t meet someone during my era, even if everyone thought that’s we did. I haven’t been involved in several years however.) In any case, sorry!
>More generally, we never purposely made the recommendation algo worse to increase boosts or because people would only stay if they didn’t meet someone during my era, even if everyone thought that’s we did.
Would anyone admit this publicly? That's a surefire way to destroy your career or getting sued.
Also begs the question for which performance indicators did you optimize if not engagement and retainment?
The YIMBY's are asking the individual property owners be allowed to decide what to do with their own properties. Not letting government dictate what people do doesn't seem like "tyranny" or "expropriation" to me.
It changed its name from the Scholastic Aptitude Test in 1990. (Over time they’ve also eliminated some of the sections most correlated with IQ.)
There’s a good history of the SAT and where it succeeded and failed in its goal of making college admissions more fair, The Big Test by Nicholas Lehmann.
I print with some professional card printing companies, the pricing goes something like 10 decks, 500$, 50 decks 800$, 100 decks 1200$, and 300 decks 1500$ and then it continues to drop
Since I printed only 50, I think the price is too high, so I would rather to give them for free than to charge unreasonable price. If you are willing to pay the shipping cost send me an email to b0000@fastmail.com, I still have few left.
For those kind of costs, I'd print 300 for $1500. That's just $5 a piece. Sell them for $10, and you can afford to give away half of them.
I think this project would make a great Kickstarter. I don't think it would be hard to get 300 people interested in backing this. Shipping is probably going to be the biggest issue; find people on other continents to help you distribute it there. That can save a lot of money.
I am halfway done with the C deck, as we are switching to C soon, and I will setup a kickstarter after, should be done around December.
I want her to know why x[3] and 3[x] are the same thing.
int x[3];
2[x] = 5;
printf("%d %d\n", 2[x], x[2])
A lot of people struggle with
x = 5
y = 6
y = x
x = 7
print(y)
and
x = [1,2]
y = [3,4]
y = x
x.append(5)
print(y)
There is something magical in understanding how the computer uses its memory, its almost as if you walk out of a mist.
I think it will be very valuable to have a set of 4 decks: python, machine code, unix pipes and C, so that the decks compliment each other. In the machine code deck there are few cards that have pointers (e.g. https://punkx.org/4917/play.html#43), and they can be used to help with the C deck for example.
