Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | jmnicolas's comments login

> (joking, not-joking)

So it's a Schrodinger joke?


It is not advised to use SQLite with several threads, are you running only a single thread?

You can't use SQLite from multiple threads if you are in single thread mode [0]. If you are in multi-thread mode you can use multiple connections to the DB from different threads, or if you want to share a connection then you have to serialize over it. Or you can use SERIALIZED mode.

This is if you do not care writing any logic. If you do, there are other possibilities, for example using a queue and a a dedicated thread for handling database access, but I personally do not think there are many advantages to this more complicated approach.

[0] https://www.sqlite.org/threadsafe.html


Thanks, I wasn't aware of this. I'm not sure if it was old info or I "imagined" it but in any case it's good to know.

I hope it wasn't true in 2019, since I painstakingly wrote a multi-threaded app that was accessing SQLite on only 1 thread!


This reminds me of the communists brainwashing with self-critic.

It basically is the same line of thought. Oppressor vs. oppressed. they might seem to hate white people because they are synonymous with oppressors (which already certifies an extremely reductive understanding of sociology and history). But for these proponents minorities that don't mirror these opinions are even worse.

Communism created two conflicting parties. The have and the have-nots and put them into classes. It is a reductive view of the world that lead to much death because people started to blame any form of failure on the respective other group.

Not saying the analysis of Marx aren't correct on a lot of things as are aligned authors. But any implementation has proved that the ideas have problems with dissent. Forced equality will become totalitarian every time.

Not "education" tries the same with white people and the others. Two completely reductive groups. I believe if you are decently intelligent and know the basics about group dynamics, you are just an asshole and certainly nobody that anyone should listen to.


Dart / Flutter lacks essential libraries: you can't do ssh / sftp on desktop for example.

As a side question, Do you parse JSON in your apps? If yes what package do you use? I tried built_value, I suspect the people that developed this really hate me personally ;)


For sure there are alot of things missing like you mention.

Another I find personally frustrating is so many libraries assume you are using the Material stack.

RE: JSON--I have used json_serializable in the past: https://pub.dev/packages/json_serializable. For my current project, I am using a data format I created call Traindown (https://traindown.com) and it's all local so I haven't hit JSON or SSH/SFTP issues personally.

Sorry I don't have a silver bullet suggestion for ya! I'm sure they don't hate you personally. Maybe all of us as collective "users" but not YOU! haha


Sadly json_serializable seems to use code generation like built_value. I'll check it anyway, it can't be worse than built_value!

Thanks for the suggestion.


What if there's a capacitor inside the phone that has enough electricity inside to let the phone ping cell towers?

Depending on your occupation it can have very serious consequences.


Did you wrap your phone with something non conducting so that it doesn't touch the tin or microwave?

It works for me with a cookie tin, the phone is wrapped in a towel.


Interesting experiment however his experience with tinfoil and metal boxes doesn't match mine.

I placed my phone wrapped in a towel inside a metal box: as soon as I close the lid I can't ping the phone on local WiFi and can't reach it with call (it goes direct to voicemail as if the phone was switched off). The GPS doesn't record any position while in the box. I didn't test the Bluetooth though.

Same thing for my car keys inside a paper towel and aluminum foil: impossible to open the car even at touching distance.

I wonder if he wrapped the device before putting it in the box or aluminum.


I would note that GPS is much more fragile than WiFi/Bluetooth/GSM. The GPS signals are already incredibly weak at the receiver.

Why look at Missouri which is a really small sample? Look at the rest of the world where mask mandates are in effect. Europe for example, isn't a COVID free haven, quite the opposite.

A colleague of mine got sick of COVID last January while he did everything by the book (masks, gel, distancing etc).

So the effectiveness of masks is probably marginal IMHO.


This comment begins with a call for larger sample sizes, segues to a single anecdote about a colleague, and ends with a sweeping conclusion that's contrary to most empirical research.

I'm not trying to be a dick, but maybe this demonstrates the flaws in a lot of our casual reasoning about public health measures.


Luckily we have data and not just anecdotes and humble opinions. For example, see https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-020-01009-0: ‘Wearing a mask’ exhibits a significant impact on Rt in three methods (ΔRt between −0.018 and –0.12)'

It's not a silver bullet, of course, and there are some situations were masks will be useless: for example, when you get in a closed room with no ventilation with other people for a long time, masks won't do too much. Or if you get together to have dinner with others and take your mask off, well, they won't do much obviously. But masks are effective, and a pretty low cost intervention to reduce the incidence. That's a fact.


There's at least one RCT on masking w.r.t. covid that finds no statistical benefit. I don't think it's appropriate to reference modeling as evidence after we have thorough studies published.

https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/m20-6817


That study is about the benefit of wearing surgical masks "in a setting where masks were uncommon and not among recommended public health measures"--thus answering the question "do surgical masks protect the wearer."

Surgical masks are thought to have a relatively limited benefit for the wearer, so this isn't surprising. However, https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02457-y demonstrates clearly that in a randomized controlled trial where surgical masks are distributed to a whole community, there was a statistically significant reduction in cases:

"The decrease was a modest 9%, but the researchers suggest that the true risk reduction is probably much greater, in part because they did no SARS-CoV-2 testing of people without symptoms or whose symptoms did not meet the World Health Organization’s definition of the disease."

There's certainly more to learn here, of course.


Inconclusive results != no statistical benefit. A 95% of CI that ranges between 46% decrease and 23% increase is pretty much inconclusive, you can't say masks are better with that study but you wouldn't be justified either in saying they don't do anything.

Quoting the results section.

> Although the difference observed was not statistically significant

I'm not sure I understand your objection, but you most definitely can say there was no statistically significant benefit.


> but you most definitely can say there was no statistically significant benefit.

Yes, but this study also doesn't point too conclusively that they don't have any effect. If the CI was something like 1% increase in infections - 1% decrease, you could say with a lot of confidence that it doesn't seem that masks did anything at all. But -23% to 46% is a gigantic range to say anything at all about effectiveness. So while this study is, as you say, not supporting the hypothesis that masks are effective, it doesn't support either the hypothesis that masks are not effective.


No, it very specifically supports the hypothesis that masks are not effective. Maybe not to the rigor you would hope for, but to my knowledge this is the most rigorous covid/mask study to date, so it's the best we've got.

That isn't to say we should ignore all other studies, but the body of literature on mask effectiveness is very split. Maybe masks do work, I wouldn't be surprised if that were true, but given the body of evidence I'm of the opinion if they do work their effect is marginal.


> No, it very specifically supports the hypothesis that masks are not effective.

It very clearly doesn't. No support for "masks are effective" is not the same that "support for masks are ineffective". To put an extreme example, suppose I make an study with just two participants, one with mask and another one without, and neither of them get infected. The results wouldn't support the hypothesis that masks are effective, but neither could support the hypothesis that masks are ineffective. Which is the point: the study you linked to does not have enough power to actually check effectiveness of the measure. The 95% confidence interval is way too large to draw any conclusion.

Another issue for the study is that it's evaluating surgical masks, which are less effective than N95 masks, and only for infection of the wearer, when we know they're much more effective at avoiding others from getting infected.

That's why population-level studies are important, and you'll find that those support the effectiveness of masks.


Masks (the N95 kind not the loose dentist kind), gel, distancing, double Pfizer shots. Still got COVID with severe symptoms not even 4th month in after the second shot.

Why is there no good statistics over breakthrough infections, not merely how many double vaccinated are in hospital? Why not blast the non-immunity provided by supposed vaccine the same way as "infections per day" is shown everywhere?

Show "failure of vaccine to provide immunity cases per day"


I don't know about your country, but in Spain we have those stats each day from the ministry of health. Turns out that the efficacy is still pretty high, around ~80% for infection. There was also a report with rates of hospitalization between vaccinated and non-vaccinated (I can't find it right now, I'll try again later) and it's a pretty clear difference, 6-14 times (depending on the age) more hospitalizations for unvaccinated persons per capita.

>Masks (the N95 kind not the loose dentist kind), gel, distancing, double Pfizer shots. Still got COVID with severe symptoms not even 4th month in after the second shot.

Ouch. Anecdotes like this really scare me. I also have friends with double Pfizer shots who got the COVID and had strong symptoms.

Maybe Pfizer should go back to the drawing board though.

Though I assume, without the vaccine they would have probably ended up in the hospital. Glad I got my 3rd dose now.


It is an anecdote, not data. Simple math: if Pfizer says their vaccine is 90% effective at preventing severe disease then 10% of people are at risk of getting severe disease. Not everybody catches COVID (masks, distancing, etc. do reduce the risk significantly, it seems), so say that’s another 90% reduction for each. That means that 1 in 1000 people you talk to will get severe COVID even when fully vaccinated.

Keep in mind that the person you are replying to is here to tell the tale. It is unclear what the vaccine did or did not do but if I was in their shoes I would certainly be glad that I wasn’t facing that infection unvaccinated. That could very well have been the difference between severe and deadly COVID. The effectiveness numbers have been always quoted as against severe illness but I would much prefer to focus on effectiveness against hospitalization and death. It seems that all three vaccines authorized/approved in the US are effective against these two outcomes, more so than merely protecting against a severe case.

Also keep in mind that what a random stranger describes on the internet as “severe” could mean a variety of things. I have had some severe colds. I haven’t had one since the pandemic started due to social distancing and masks. Don’t panic. Get your shots (booster included) and keep an eye on the data.


> Simple math: if Pfizer says their vaccine is 90% effective at preventing severe disease then 10% of people are at risk of getting severe disease.

That’s not quite how vaccine efficacy works. Suppose the risk of getting sick is 0.5% per thousand person hours when unvaccinated. A 90% vaccine efficacy means that the risk of getting sick is reduced to 0.05% per thousand person hours, not that 10% of people who get vaccinated are still vulnerable.


I think you’re mixing effectiveness and efficacy. You’re both correct but talking about different terms minus that the parent comment needs some prior adjustment in the numbers to get the posterior.

According to the WHO, efficacy refers to vaccine performance in controlled studies whereas effectiveness refers to performance in the broader population [0]. Data aggregated by JHU appears more or less consistent with estimates of vaccine efficacy [1].

[0] https://www.who.int/news-room/feature-stories/detail/vaccine...

[1] https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/pandemic-data-initiative/data-ou...


An anecdote in the other direction: I know people that were working in the hospital, treating COVID-19 infected people, before vaccines. Protection was a N95 mask (well-fitted and tight), a gown and gloves. They worked for months without an outbreak, until a bunch of them got infected. The source of that infection was probably in a meeting with a patient (for things unrelated to COVID) in a closed room when they were wearing non-N95 masks. None of them had strong symptoms other than a few days feeling awful.

> Maybe Pfizer should go back to the drawing board.

Maybe we should look at the data and see that the vaccines are still pretty effective. Think about the difference in restrictions and people behavior between now and before the vaccines: they have pretty much enabled normal life again and made COVID a much less worrying disease, even with high case numbers again.


Maybe Pfizer should go back to the drawing board though.

The vaccines (on the U.S. market, at least) were never promoted as providing complete protection from Covid. It was about preventing serious illness and keeping people out of the hospital. As others have pointed out, they have been largely successful in those goals.

I'm not claiming the vaccines are perfect, but I think a large part of the population was under the impression that these vaccines were some sort of silver bullet that would end the virus in a few short months.

edit: spelling


"The vaccines (on the U.S. market, at least) were never promoted as providing complete protection from Covid."

Then do not call it a vaccine, because it is not.

I did not take my TBE vaccine, to be greeted a year later by TBE.


What definition of "vaccine" are you using? From Wikipedia[0]:

Vaccines can be prophylactic (to prevent or ameliorate the effects of a future infection by a natural or "wild" pathogen), or therapeutic (to fight a disease that has already occurred, such as cancer). Some vaccines offer full sterilizing immunity, in which infection is prevented completely.

The key word up there is "ameliorate," which is exactly what the Covid vaccines available in United States promise to do.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaccine


Maybe the Pfizer dose just needs to be higher like Moderna's

England for one has open source statistics, and most cases are breakthrough. Alex Berenson has some good analysis of these statistics on his Substack.

> England for one has open source statistics, and most cases are breakthrough

I was thinking why one would say this without mentioning that the vaccination rate is pretty high, so one would expect more breakthrough cases than cases in unvaccinated people. For an extreme example, with 100% vaccination rate, all cases would be breakthrough. I can't find the UK data, so can't answer exactly, but not unexpected at all.

> Alex Berenson

And this explains why you didn't include it. I didn't know this person, but apparently he's a writer, no education in stats/biology/medicine, from the US, and apparently has made multitude of wrong claims [1]. I wonder if it's that you don't know better or you're making a bad faith argument.

1: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/04/pandemics-...


And even more than mentioning vaccination rate you also have to consider age distribution.

Age is still a significant factor of infection chance and disease severity/outcome.

If older people are more likely to be vaccinated than younger people then it skews to more breakthroughs. You can even get a simpson's paradox where people were seeing higher fatalities in overall vaccinated vs unvaccinated but is not true when you controlled for age.

And these days one would probably also have to consider time since last vaccination since antibody titer wanes with time which is likely important.


>I was thinking why one would say this without mentioning that the vaccination rate is pretty high

Does that really need to be stated? I don't think even the most suspicious among us think the vaccines make a person more likely to catch Covid all else being equal. It seems more a commentary on the narrative (not promulgated by you, but it is out there) that vaccines+distancing will somehow be able to eliminate the novel coronavirus entirely.


> It seems more a commentary on the narrative (not promulgated by you, but it is out there) that vaccines+distancing will somehow be able to eliminate the novel coronavirus entirely.

To be honest, the only times I've seen this narrative is when people say it's out there and argue against it. I've never seen it seriously supported.


That may be an effect of my own filter bubble at play, they do tend to bring the most insane examples of the outside belief structure to the fore. While I haven't seen anyone try to defend it, I have seen people imply they believe it's true. Would you not see this as an example of implicit belief that coronavirus can be eliminated through such measures? https://xkcd.com/2287/

The data for the UK shows a reduction of both hospitalization and deaths in the vaccinated population [0].

[0] https://www.bmj.com/content/374/bmj.n2306


Europe for example, isn't a COVID free haven, quite the opposite.

Do we know if Europe actually has stricter mask mandates (that are observed) and more mask wearing, like you seem to be suggesting? Because based on my casual observation I'd say no.


It'll depend a huge amount on the country in Europe you're referring to. Germany is a lot stricter than the Netherlands, for example.

> Europe for example, isn't a COVID free haven, quite the opposite.

> So the effectiveness of masks is probably marginal IMHO.

Non-sequitur.


Masks by themselves aren't enough to eliminate the virus, though they can be part of a larger set of measures.

The entire package of measures that bring viral prevalence to zero are well established, and have been implemented in several countries. They include:

* Initial lockdowns to drive incidence down to near-zero.

* After reopening, strict quarantine for people arriving from regions where the virus is circulating.

* Thorough contact tracing, and the ability to quarantine people who come into close contact with infected people.

* Temporary restrictive measures (like stopping mass gatherings) during new outbreaks.

* The ability to rapidly test large populations during an outbreak, in order to quickly identify and isolate infected people and quarantine their contacts.

This is an entire system aimed at keeping viral prevalence at zero over the long term. It actually allows most of society to function normally most of the time, because as long as there is zero prevalence, everyone can go about their lives normally.


Yes but Dart although an OK language is clearly not up to C# brilliance.

A lot of libraries don't exist in Dart or are platform specific (for example you can do SFTP only on Android and iOS, but not on desktop).

On the other hand, Flutter as a UI framework is much better than anything Microsoft makes (and they make a lot!). It's way more easy to build something beautiful with flutter.


Is Flutter Desktop not still in beta? I'm not sure, the dart website looks like it would be finally released as stable, but we all know how it works with the big G and their projects ;)

Missing lib's are a big point, but we have to take the age of both languages, the size of their communities and the intended purpose into consideration.

C# was released around 2000 massively pushed by Microsoft with Desktop as primary target. Dart was released around 2010 or 2011 and was more or less intended to be a web language like JS/TS IIRC.


Web dev allergy in my case. You probably don't see it anymore, but for someone that didn't start with it, it's very convoluted and seems very brittle.

I want a compiler that colors my code red when I make a mistake, not an environment that behaves like nothing happened.

I don't want to juggle 3 different languages, need to download the whole internet when I want a simple function like left pad.

Although I despise what MS stands for, C# is a joy to use. I can't comment on Uno, I chose Flutter for my mobile needs, mainly because MS still hasn't got its shit together as far as UI are concerned.


> I want a compiler that colors my code red when I make a mistake, not an environment that behaves like nothing happened.

This is what any half-decent React and TypeScript app will do for you. I write fully typed applications in TS & React and any typo, call site update, interface change, or other mistake you can imagine surfaces a TS error, in my text editor, with helpful text editor highlighting 90% of the time (sometimes the IDE is slightly different than the console).


Not sure why you're getting downvoted. This is the whole point of typescript in my eyes. Those red squiggles before you even save the file.

People are displeased when you inform them their 5 year old view of JS and React is indeed outdated, I suppose.

> need to download the whole internet when I want a simple function like left pad

That can't be the reason. These kinds of projects don't address that problem. In the ordinary case, it's usually made worse by a factor of 2–10.


Xamarin (soon to be MAUI) is the best option in my opinion, especially if you enjoy C#.

I went directly with Flutter so I don't have any experience with Xamarin. However I have read a lot of bad comments about it, they say it's buggy and frustrating.

Xamarin.Forms is buggy and frustrating, Xamarin.Native (i.e. just native bindings without a huge opinionated framework on top) is really nice. If you know native dev already its a huge productivity boost (with the occasional hiccup).

I don’t think Xamarin Native supports SwiftUI and Jetpack Compose? The thing about the new declarations UIs is they lend themselves really well to something like Xamarin Native. I wish Xamarin would support them.

No, those are new frameworks entirely vs the traditional SDKs. I'm not sure if there currently _is_ a way to generate bindings or not, or if they rely on compiler magic to do their things.

Their way to provide macOS support is to make use of Catalyst, hardly the way to sell having macOS support to anyone that knows the ecosystem, but apparently they act surprised when we point out this to them.

No wonder that MAUI isn't being used on the VS for Mac rewrite.


Ive been pretty disappointed being a fly on the wall of Github during the MAUI transition. I dont see a lot of "lessons learned" from Xamarin coming through in the effort and there are several issues similar to yours where they seem to be disconnected from the dev community on large issues.

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: