habryka

5 ms·

31.
by habryka 6y ago
The author said he is going to try to do measurements to the best of what is easily possible: > So, we’ll do (up to) two more blood tests. The first will be two weeks after our third (weekly) dose; that one is the “optimistic” test, in c
32.
by habryka 6y ago
I suggested 50% as more of an upper bound. My current guess is I would be very surprised if these have very high efficacy, based on a number of studies on kind of similar vaccines I remember reading. I think the most likely outcome is that
33.
by habryka 6y ago
Yes, though the vaccine is likely to have substantially less efficacy than current mRNA based vaccines from Pfizer and Moderna, though I think it's promising enough that some level of efficacy (like idk. maybe 50%, who knows) doesn&#x2
34.
by habryka 6y ago
Thank you! :)
35.
by habryka 6y ago
LessWrong lead developer here: The commenting features are pretty embedded in the codebase, so a bit hard to say something specifically about that. A number of people have asked us whether we could somehow make it a package and support the
36.
by habryka 6y ago
You're welcome! :)
37.
by habryka 6y ago
(LessWrong.com team lead here) It's actually really useful for getting bug reports for the site, and we have a number of authors who we help a lot with doing various custom HTML and javascript integrations for their posts, and having a
38.
LessWrong Coronavirus Link Database(lesswrong.com)
2 points by habryka 7y ago|0 comments
39.
Beyond the hill: thoughts on forecasting, stories, and essay-completeness(foretold.io)
18 points by habryka 7y ago|5 comments
40.
by habryka 8y ago
(Main Dev of site here: Sorry for that! I should really get around to setting up autoscaling. Site should now be properly available again.)