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

Looks like this has taken out Reddit at least.

Is it also hitting Github? I'm not getting any css when loading Github.

Looks like it is. If you're still able to see much of the UI, don't force-reload the page as it'll invalidate the CSS in the cache.

I did that moments ago, and I regret it.


And a large part of GitLab

The lack of sleep on almost everything is horrifying. I recommend that book to everyone whenever the topic is discussed.


Could someone please explain how this can be the case? I understand the vaccine works by stimulating antibody production, which prevent you from becoming ill by binding to the virus and disabling it should it enter your system. How then could the virus be spread further if it's already been disabled?


Virus can infect cells in areas that are difficult to reach for immune system - epithelial cells lining the nasal mucosa for example - but they still would produce viral particles that could be sneezed on someone else.

Indeed this paper found association between viral load and symptoms - hospitalized patients are shedding less virus

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7332909/


Different tissues are protected by different types of antibodies. A vaccine injected subcutaneously will mostly induce an IgG response, a type of antibody present in blood and extracellular fluid. This could still possibly allow a virus to infect mucous membranes, which rely on a different type of antibody, sIgA[0], to protect them. If this is the case, you could be protected from having a serious systemic infection, but could still suffer a mild upper respiratory infection, and be infectious until the immune system mounted defense in the mucous membranes.

Some flu vaccines come in the form of a nasal spray, which does induce an IgA response. I don't know why COVID vaccines are administered parenterally instead, I'm sure there are good technical reasons. Given the virus's possible neurological involvement, maybe it's a bad idea to deposit it so close to the olfactory bulb.

0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immunoglobulin_A#Secretory_IgA


The vaccine teaches your immune system to respond to a particular protein that surrounds the virus. If you contract the virus you are still infectious until it can kill all of the virus. The time between the immune response and OG infection can mean the virus has time to replicate and spread/ be shed I’m guessing.


There is the virus replicating itself in a body, which leads to the body being able to spread the virus to others. And there is the body getting sick. The second often follows the first, but the two are not necessarily connected, which is proven by asymptomatic spreaders. In the vaccine phase 3 tests, it was only determined whether people get sick, and the vaccine was found to prevent 95% of people from getting sick. It was not tested whether the viral load in vaccinated people who don't get sick, but still had virus exposure, was high enough for a real likelihood of transmission to others. This now results in those warnings regarding potential transmission even through vaccinated people: scientifically that's a possibility that hasn't been ruled out.

However, the science is the easy part here. It gets complicated once politics comes into play. Pretty much all scientists I've spoken or listened to say that they assume that the spread will most likely be at least severely limited through the vaccines. That's because they don't have any other explanation than a reduced viral load that could explain how the vaccines actually work in preventing sickness, and a reduced viral load would also mean a reduced spreading capability. However, not knowing something does not mean it can't exist: it is not impossible for there to be some unknown way in which these vaccines may potentially prevent sickness without also limiting viral spread. And scientists usually want to be scientifically correct, so they don't go out and declare something as fact that they just carefully "assume" to be the case.

This "known unknown" of effectiveness in limiting viral spread is now actively being used by politics, especially those people coordinating protective measures in governments, as a convenient escape hatch out of a problematic situation. That situation is: how do you explain to someone who just got vaccinated that he/she should still adhere to all the protective measures like universal mask-wearing and limiting personal contacts? Because even though there are rational reasons for doing so (first, the vaccines need two shots and some weeks of time to actually build up protection, and second, if a significant portion of the populace is exempt from all the protective measures and their burdens, this incentivizes the remaining, non-vaccinated part to also "exempt themselves", because constraints enforced on all citizens are much easier to follow than constraints only enforced on half of all citizens) there will be a strong impetus within each individual to not follow protective measures and rules anymore, once vaccinated and thus "protected" from the virus. And besides that psychological effect there's the overarching problem of the constitutional impossibility of enforcing wide-ranging limitations on constitutional rights onto people that is not justifiable anymore, once an individual in question can provably no longer spread the virus. Because of all of this, politicians (rightfully) fear the situation that we're going to be in in a few months time, when a significant part of the populace, but not enough for herd immunity, is already vaccinated. An assumption of a possibility of transmission even with vaccination is a godsend in that situation.


Possible "reduced viral load" by those who are vaccinated simply doesn't mean that that load is below the threshold which makes somebody not infectious. In practice, it could, for example, mean that if such persons spend two hours in the room with you they can still transmit the virus to you, whereas the non vaccinated person with the virus would transmit to you in 15 minutes. So you can't just claim that a person is 100% safe because the load is just "reduced."

Additionally, for the immune system to respond, the infection has to happen first -- the virus has to spread through the cells of your body. We already know that the people are indeed infectious before their immune system response makes the symptoms. The delay in response has to exist even among the vaccinated people.

So what is sought after is a proof of sterilizing immunity, and there's no such still. I've read that the UK plans to evaluate the evidence for that in the following months by tracking the people who get the vaccine, which sounds good.


There is no threshold that makes people non-infectious. Or there is, and it is zero. Because even a single virus instance can potentially infect someone else. It is extremely unlikely to happen, but not impossible.

Because of this, for practical purposes, you either have to arbitrarily set a threshold at which someone is considered non-infectious, ignoring that it is not impossible for that person to infect someone. Or you have to stop talking in absolutes entirely and just talk about probabilities.


When taking about probabilities, one usually can recognize a reasonable threshold. In practice we do exactly that with most of the medicine: there could be some small chance that somebody can have health problems because his body responds unfavorably to the medicine, but if that chance is small enough it is considered acceptable when the potential benefits overweight the potential loss when the medicine is not used, its use is allowed. If the chance is big enough (i.e. potentially too many people will be affected) such a medicine is not allowed to be used, at least with the affected group of people.

The same is with the possibility that a vaccinated person infects somebody else. There is some point behind which it could be said that some vaccine has "sterilizing immunity" even if some small level of viruses could be present somewhere. For the current vaccine, the question is if the viral load in some point after the infection is decreased at all, and if it is, how much.

At the moment, however, it's simply not known if, in this case, Pfizer vaccine provides sterilizing level of immunity, if, then when, and in which percentage of the vaccinated. At the moment more or less we just know that the vaccinated are less probable to develop symptoms. Efficacy of 95% here means only one of 20 vaccinated develops symptoms when exposed to the virus, so we know that it's also probable that at least 1 in 20, even after being vaccinated, could be able to infect somebody else while being in the "pre-symptomatic" phase (as it is believed by the researchers that one transmits the virus before one's symptoms starts). We also believe that asymptomatic are also able to transmit. We don't know how much the vaccine affects the transmission that could occur when a vaccinated person is exposed to an infected one, and then later comes in close contact with other unvaccinated persons.


You are asking why an already infected person who receives the vaccine may still be able to spread it? The virus is still able to spread while the body fights it. In fact I'm not even sure there is a significant advantage of giving the vaccine to someone who already has the virus (as after all the vaccine teaches the body what the virus looks like and therefore how it can be tackled). This specific vaccine looks as if it simulates certain aspects of the virus, therefore not entirely necessary for someone who already has the virus I believe. But yeah - it's not like you get jabbed and you have instant immunity. Your body needs to learn to fight it, and then actually fight it - and if you already have it you are still infectious during this period.


DMA Design (which later became Rockstar North, developers of Grand Theft Auto) were formed in Dundee. Not exactly the middle of nowhere, but probably not where you'd expect to find one of the world's most popular video game franchises.


+1 for fb2k, currently using 13MB RAM to play an MP3 with my collection of ~50K tracks loaded in the background.


"This Is Your Brain on Parasites" is a fantastic book on this - https://www.amazon.co.uk/This-Your-Brain-Parasites-Manipulat...


Is Google's head of payment systems really called "Bill Ready"?


Nintendo's CEO's last name is Bowser.

Our AG is named "Barr" (Pun on a Bar association)

Is there a cool collection of these somewhere? These are the only evidence I feel that we're in a simulation and the engineer is fucking with us.



Incredible.


The DHS secretary spokesperson with the entire Portland brouhaha is named Chad Wolf. If that wasn't a meme name I don't know what is.


Not spokesperson. Unconstitutionally appointed "Acting" Secretary of Homeland Security.


And Anthony Weiner, well...


The most famous weatherman in Finland is Pekka Pouta, which literally means "Pekka Fairweather"

https://youtu.be/8sS7-CfPn6Q


I knew a gynecologist named Dr. Hole. To be fair there are at least three ironic specialties he could have gone into.


There's a urologist in Austin, Texas named Richard Chopp.


I believe there was a man named Armond Hammer who was the CEO of the company that owns Arm&Hammer (the baking soda company) at one point.


Armand Hammer wasn't the CEO, just a minority shareholder and board member. He wanted to buy the company because he liked the name and apparently already used an arm and hammer as his personal insignia. (Fun fact: His grandson is Armie Hammer, the actor, who was named after him.)


I notice that in my home state, the head of more than one auto dealership had the same last name as the brand of car sold by the dealership, for reasons that were coincidences.

I wonder if there is some kind of unconscious social bias at work in these cases?


If your name matches a brand of a car it might be rational to sell that brand; assuming it's otherwise a completely arbitrary choice, it probably helps name recognition and memory, since some customers will probably mention it as a mildly interesting anecdote to their friends and family.


en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nominative_determinism


Head of the Sydney Water Board Union was named Sydney Lake.


The COO of Starbucks has the last name Brewer


Arsene Wenger, former Arsenal manager


The Matrix is real.


(Googler, opinion is my own).

Technically, no. He's head of Commerce, which is different than payments (I'm in payments). You can see from that page, they do things like shopping listings, and the experience around it. Payments (at least at Google) is just a service that teams like that can use. You'll notice that checkout screens for shopping, ads, Youtube, Store, etc... are all very similar. That final payment experience is Payments.


One of the highest judges in the UK is Lord Judge, who used to be Judge Judge: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Igor_Judge,_Baron_Judge


Or when your name is Rich Ricci and you run a bank...


He used to be an EVP at PayPal :)


Food For The Poor President and Chief Executive Officer used to be Robin Mahfood


A name, a destiny.



I wonder whether this is just write-only, or if they've been able to read private data (like DMs) too.


In an attempt to mitigate the damage, Twitter appears to have blocked verified accounts from sending tweets.


I'm in a similar position - a tech lead role at a Big N - and have recently been doing some interviews for senior roles at FAANG. The most frustrating thing is knowing I can't really leverage anything I've learned over the past 7 years of my career in the interview, at least at the early stages. I've been "studying" Leetcode after work for a month or so but always seem to make stupid mistakes under the time pressure of the interview. I don't want to spend my entire career at one company, but it's clear I'll need to be very lucky and/or practice much harder on my own time if I want anything like a similar position/salary elsewhere.


This is something I find so disturbing, and I experience similar.

I feel extremely little of what I'm doing in my real, actual, job, helps me in advancing in my career. Unless maybe if I choose to stay at my current company until retirement lol.

Otherwise, why bother doing anything more than the bare minimum to get by at work? It would be a far better investment of time and effort to grind leetcode and practice for interviews, instead of going above and beyond to excel at my job. At least until I get into an "endgame company" where I feel it's worth staying long term.


If you want a good career, working on your interviewing skills is the most important thing. Networking and resume fluff are close seconds. Job skill is almost irrelevant. It's an ugly truth.


sad but true. hope as an industry we can find a better way.


I think the answer is we need more innovation. We need a million small startups instead of a dozen tech giants. Software scales but starting up is a moonshot.


My personal career epiphany was moving from a tech giant to a late-stage, pre-IPO startup. The amount of freedom and range of challenges I dealt with were exhilarating. Did it pay as much? Not in the beginning, but I was given the room to grow.


What is wrong with the tech industry? What are we doing all of this for?


I've been asking myself the same question as of late, I haven't come up with a good answer yet.


supply vs. demand.

as long as 9 other candidates are willing to run the LC gauntlet, the 10th doesn't stand out.


At some rare companies people ask questions about real-world scaling which has been nice to leverage some actual knowledge but that's usually just a small part of the process and almost treated as a soft-skill which is kind of hilarious.

We just really want to hire a senior dev who can spit out highly optimized code that in the real-world would be handled by a stable open source library rather than people who have built stable systems.


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

Search: