nodamage

65 ms·

601.
by nodamage 6y ago
Not by the definition given in section 3.1.3(a) of the App Store review guidelines.
602.
by nodamage 6y ago
Except the app was not rejected for failing to meet the standards of the quote. It was rejected for failing to meet the App Store review guidelines. This whole website is a strawman built against the false claim that you're not allowed
603.
by nodamage 6y ago
It might have been an oversight in the approval process. But it looks like they have been asked to comply with the rules by adding IAP to their iOS app as well: https://twitter.com/Fastmail/status/12738002229893242
604.
by nodamage 6y ago
AirBnb and airlines are companion apps for physical services and the rules for in-app purchases don't apply.
605.
by nodamage 6y ago
While I agree that Apple should probably relax their rules, this list of "exceptions" is not particularly compelling. The majority of them are companion apps for physical products/memberships for which the rules around in-app
606.
by nodamage 6y ago
There is a specific exemption for "Reader" apps like Netflix specified in the App Store Review Guidelines: 3.1.3(a) “Reader” Apps: Apps may allow a user to access previously purchased content or content subscriptions (specificall
607.
by nodamage 6y ago
I mean, perhaps I misinterpreted the original article, but it sure sounded like the author was hypothesizing that T-cells confer immunity to a large percentage of the population which is why we were only seeing infection rates of up to 10-2
608.
by nodamage 6y ago
It was not my intent to imply anything about the severity of COVID infections, only that a 10-20% infection threshold is contradicted by several real world examples. While it is still possible that T-cells may have some immunological benefi
609.
by nodamage 6y ago
I'm not sure what exactly you think is negative? The claim that infections top out at 10-20% is clearly not true. Even if it were true, we don't really know enough yet to conclude that T-cells would be the reason why. > It’s a
610.
by nodamage 6y ago
> And wherever we look, infections level off before 10%-20% of the population is infected. This is somewhat mysterious. This is not really true. Bergamo had a 58% infection rate as of last month: https://bergamo.corriere.it&#x
611.
by nodamage 6y ago
> Aspnet core using a "rawdb" adapter doesn't seem like what I would interperet as "realistic". Why not? I don't think using raw SQL instead of an ORM is particularly uncommon. The "platform" bench
612.
by nodamage 6y ago
Here is a WHO report from February saying the same thing: > Modeling is a helpful tool to try to account for missed cases, such as those that are mild cases potentially missed in current surveillance activities, and the time lag between
613.
by nodamage 6y ago
Nevermind, it's mentioned in the original article which I missed the first time around: > The following week, Boyd had results in hand. Using ELISA tests to reassess the samples of community members who had come up positive for anti
614.
by nodamage 6y ago
This seems like a really big deal, so I'm going to second the request for a source on it.
615.
by nodamage 6y ago
> The postponement of mortality only becomes the true avoidance of mortality when we get a "game-changer": a vaccine or a highly effective treatment that seriously improves outcomes. I don't think this is correct. Every da
616.
by nodamage 6y ago
> I came across this the other day on reddit. It is another cfr study with much lower rates. https://reddit.com/r/COVID19/comments/g6nmtf/_/foatvgv/?cont... . I would be careful about general
617.
by nodamage 6y ago
> But the 1% for the diamond princess is quite high and I think that number was cited for caution. Why? The Diamond Princess has had 14 fatalities out of 712 cases which implies a fatality rate of 2%, with 8 unresolved cases still in the
618.
by nodamage 6y ago
It's worth noting that this issue was posted by a moderator of the /r/LockdownSkepticism/ subreddit to push a particular political agenda, and now this repo is being brigaded by users from said subreddit.
619.
by nodamage 6y ago
Can you provide specific numbers?
620.
by nodamage 7y ago
> If the authors had given a table for the US, we could see what their model predicted, but they did not, and _you_ assuming that the US is a linear relation to GB may or may not be accurate. The Imperial College team actually did model
621.
by nodamage 7y ago
60% is the probability that a particular positive test result is actually a false positive. It's not the overall the false positive rate.
622.
by nodamage 7y ago
It's worth noting that is the manufacturer claim but has not held up to independent validation. Specifically, the Premier Biotech/Hangzhou Biotest Biotech test was validated by a Chinese provincial CDC and found 4 false positives
623.
by nodamage 7y ago
Yes this is happening all over this thread and is absolutely not a valid comparison. I'm also seeing people compare age-stratified Covid rates with overall flu fatality rates which is also invalid for similar reasons.
624.
by nodamage 7y ago
Bear in mind that the CDC estimate of 45 million influenza cases[1] is the number of symptomatic cases, and therefore it doesn't really make sense to directly compare that with Covid-19 IFR rates calculated from antibody studies whic
625.
by nodamage 7y ago
> As others have said, for those around age 45 or less, Covid is equally or less dangerous than Influenza. And particular for those under 30 the flu is an order of magnitude more deadly at least. Can you share the specific numbers you us
626.
by nodamage 7y ago
The manual for the test used specifically warns that other coronaviruses may lead to a positive test result. > Positive results may be due to past or present infection with non-SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus strains, such as coronavirus HKU1, NL
627.
by nodamage 7y ago
It looks like the test used in this study (and the LA study) was actually manufactured by Hangzhou Biotest Biotech Co., Ltd and is not FDA approved. Premier Biotech is simply the US distributor. [1] Given the news reports of Chinese compani
628.
by nodamage 7y ago
> That's my main take-away at this point. I have seen enough reports saying it worked, and enough saying it didn't that I believe the answer is probably somewhere in the middle. The initial study indicating HCQ was effective wa
629.
by nodamage 7y ago
Isn't that paper highly theoretical at this point since it's based on computer simulations? Are there any studies on actual humans confirming the virus's effect on hemoglobin?
630.
by nodamage 7y ago
Wonder if they're doing anything similar with the "headphones randomly powering on even though the switch is turned off" issue?

More ›