beagle3

67 ms·

781.
by beagle3 6y ago
The 95% everyone quotes is for mild disease. For severe disease, Pfizer had 4 in the control group, and 1 in the vaccine group. That’s 75% RRR, with a confidence interval that spans 0-100%. Look at the graphs here and in Pfizer’s. Immunity
782.
by beagle3 6y ago
Please look at the graphs and data, not the headlines. Nothing magical happens past day 12 from the first vaccine in the Pfizer paper, or day 18 in this paper. Seriously. Look at it. Yes, ynetnews is ynet/yediot. Their reporting of cov
783.
by beagle3 6y ago
See my other reply to the other copy of your comment. Please prove that you actually read the Pfizer report and not just repeating headlines before calling me a lier. I might have misread some data, but I see no indication that you are in a
784.
by beagle3 6y ago
No it is not. Have you actually read either Pfizer’s report or this paper? Looked at their data? The graphs, both in Pfizer’s original report and in this paper, show that past about two weeks, there is almost no change. Please look at the P
785.
by beagle3 6y ago
That is propaganda. The real data is in https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.01.27.21250612v... and is 50% (not uniformly over age groups, but 50% is a good summary of it all). The Israeli government faile
786.
by beagle3 6y ago
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.01.27.21250612v... You’ll have to actually read it, or find a tldr from someone who knows what they are doing. The same calc that leads to 0.04% above would say overall
787.
by beagle3 6y ago
They are not magicians. They are on the losing side of what turned out to be a few billions dollar bet (real money. Not notional). They usually profit from switching side quickly or making informed bets you can’t easily make - like shorting
788.
by beagle3 6y ago
These shorts aren’t options. They are real (borrowed) shares - which is what makes it much harder for the short sellers to wiggle out, and every price increase makes them lose more money. (If it were puts, they’d lose the premium paid but w
789.
by beagle3 6y ago
True, but do note Israel’s population is 1/50 of Europe, so the logistics of accommodating it (on the producer side) are relatively easy.
790.
by beagle3 6y ago
Not to mention, the 95% is on the relatively uninteresting “mild disease” endpoint. Israeli data came out in the last 24h on severe disease - and it’s only 50% RRR
791.
by beagle3 6y ago
It should be noted that this is likely nit worse than Pfizer, despite marketing. The 50% for Sinovac is real world data; the 95% for Pfizer comes from company phase 3 data. Well, last night a reputable Israeli HMO posted it’s real world dat
792.
by beagle3 6y ago
In fact, there was a Mac emulator for that Amiga that, using the same CPU and hardware accelerated graphics, ran Mac software much faster than the Mac did.
793.
by beagle3 6y ago
Yes, but that’s not more ponzi than e.g. Snapchat which expected to never make money in its filing. When you buy it, you expect to sell it to a bigger fool, or for a miracle. GameStop is the same; they are both doomed, and will be worth 0 s
794.
by beagle3 6y ago
IB claimed to have hiked margin to 100% which is a reasonable response. However, I have heard from many sources that they in fact rejected buy orders even with cash - which, if true, and I have every reason to believe so, makes any explanat
795.
by beagle3 6y ago
As much as that term can apply to buying stocks, it does. Whether buying stocks should be considered investment or gambling - is an entirely different distinction.
796.
by beagle3 6y ago
CNBC reported Melvin Capital closed the shorts, and then it turned out they didn’t. This is very likely criminal market manipulation, but I’d be surprised if it ends up with more than a slap on the wrist to anyone. And ... at the time I wro
797.
by beagle3 6y ago
Seems like the 100% line was crossed in Jun 2019 - and it does indeed mean that going long since that point, at almost any price was fundamentally sound investment and not ponzi; It is a pyramid, but the base layer of “suckers”, those that
798.
by beagle3 6y ago
TCG is actually the 2nd generation backend. The 1st generation was much worse, but it was incredibly elegant: the operations were just written as functions in C, as you may do for an interpreter - and then memcpy’d one after the other. So a
799.
by beagle3 6y ago
Except, as SI/Float was at 139%, there was a guaranteed sucker to buy it off them at basically any price - unlike in a Ponzi scheme where you never know if there’s going to be another sucker.
800.
by beagle3 6y ago
This has been happening every day for a few days before the stop (perhaps a few weeks at a lower rate). Why don’t you “buy it”?
801.
by beagle3 6y ago
And yet, as soon as WeBull allowed it again, it went up quite a bit. So we have proof positive that RH cost these people very real money. What I’m saying is that you are provably wrong.
802.
by beagle3 6y ago
The sells were appropriate if bought on margin (once the share price took a dive). The thing is, RobinHood refused “buy” order that were completely inline with the margin requirements, and that caused the share price to dive. Seems to be
803.
by beagle3 6y ago
It does because they let them buy on margin. Interactive Brokers hiked the long margin to 100% (and short to 300%) which is a reasonable way for a broker to behave. Killing the ability to buy is not.
804.
by beagle3 6y ago
A broker is nit your friend who refuses to buy junk food for you because he suspects you’ll be sick. A broker is yiur fiduciary/agent; their discretion at refusing your order should be limited to well defined circumstances, and I would
805.
by beagle3 6y ago
This is purely fundamental. As of this morning, short interest was still 139% of float - which means that there are still exist buyers who will pay any price, no matter how high - or default on their shorting obligation. Is it anything but
806.
by beagle3 6y ago
Do they have the legal privilege to do it? I suspect not, because if they did, they would be able to kill a company by not let anyone buy its share.
807.
by beagle3 6y ago
You could run lots of things with the right plug-in/activex component. And even VBScript on IE/Win. But Netscape Navigator was not yet dead, so the only reliable browser scripting language was JS.
808.
by beagle3 6y ago
Until Node (when it was more than 10 years old), JS essentially did not exist outside the web. And other languages essentially didn’t exist inside the web. So JS’s success is the web’s success, other explanations are not helpful or needed.
809.
by beagle3 6y ago
And yet, surprisingly, almost no one is aware of it. I have informed many of my technophile, uBO/ABP friends and colleagues that it’s possible, and not one of them was aware before I told them.
810.
by beagle3 6y ago
uBlock or uBlock Origin? They are not the same thing.

More ›