Tuesday, January 31, 2023
Monday, January 30, 2023
Our galaxy will be colonized by robots not humans | David Kipping and Lex Fridman
It might be impossible or too difficult to send biological beings to other stars. But we could send intelligent machines.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RI_iji4N7-k
There is an assumption that is often taken as a given that it won't be too hard to develop intelligent machines. Eventually, we will get there, but there are huge technical hurdles to overcome, along with the end of Moore's law. We are approaching the limit of how small we can make circuits with silicon. Different computer technologies are being developed, but they are a ways off.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RI_iji4N7-k
There is an assumption that is often taken as a given that it won't be too hard to develop intelligent machines. Eventually, we will get there, but there are huge technical hurdles to overcome, along with the end of Moore's law. We are approaching the limit of how small we can make circuits with silicon. Different computer technologies are being developed, but they are a ways off.
Sunday, January 29, 2023
Friday, January 27, 2023
Thursday, January 26, 2023
Bill Maher goes NUCLEAR on COVID Tyranny
https://youtube.com/shorts/0MXPmTdfIkI?feature=share
I agree about mandates. I disagree about vaccine hesitancy in the midst of a deadly worldwide pandemic.
If this were smallpox, with a death rate 30 times higher, how many people would be opposed to the vaccine? But when it is your family member who dies from COVID-19, the death is no less significant.
Best wishes,
John Coffey
I agree about mandates. I disagree about vaccine hesitancy in the midst of a deadly worldwide pandemic.
If this were smallpox, with a death rate 30 times higher, how many people would be opposed to the vaccine? But when it is your family member who dies from COVID-19, the death is no less significant.
Best wishes,
John Coffey
Wednesday, January 25, 2023
Monday, January 23, 2023
Vaccines Will Not Produce Worse Variants | Science | AAAS
'And past antibodies, there's the whole T-cell system - those T cells are looking to recognize human cells that have been attacked by the virus, whereupon they move in to kill them off before they can break open like a piƱata and release a big pile of new viral particles. They are primed for this task by having pieces of viral proteins presented to them by other immune cells, and these T cells become specifically sensitized to the appearance of these in the future - these pieces get taken to the surface of infected cells by the MHC glycoproteins where the T cells can detect them. So you can see that in all of these cases, the key is protein surface recognition, which tells you how viruses can work their way around to evading such attacks. They have to change their surface proteins in such a way that they can still function, but that defeats that antibody/T-cell binding that the immune system has settled in on.
That's not so easy, because (for one thing) there are an enormous number of different antibodies involved (and an enormous number of T-cell recognition proteins). There are any number of ways to bind to a given protein target, and the adaptive immune system's whole function is to be ready for all kinds of targets and to hit them in all kinds of ways. And there's that constraint mentioned above: the virus still has to be able to function! Losing the entire Spike protein or mutating it completely beyond recognition would definitely evade vaccine-induced immunity, but it would also definitely produce a coronavirus that couldn't infect human cells in the way it's completely evolved to do. Coming up with a completely new infection route is (mutationally) extremely costly and complex, and not something that can be done "on the fly". Various coronaviruses use different human cell surface proteins to do their attack, but these have gradually developed and diverged over evolutionary time (hundreds of thousands, or millions of years) through untold numbers of tiny steps.
But it can be done, in principle. And as with everything in evolution, if it gets done at all, it'll get done by similarly untold numbers of individual mutants, and mutants on top of those mutants, until something appears that can both avoid being inactivated by the immune response and still infect cells and reproduce. There is no guarantee that such a virus can exist, and there is no guarantee that it can't. Evaluating the number of possibilies is frankly beyond computation - we didn't, for example, see the details of the Delta variant coming, and if you'd given someone that exact sequence last year, there's no guarantee that they would have been able to predict how much more infectious it would be.
The more chances you give the coronavirus to reproduce, the more mutations it will explore. Its proofreading system for reproduction is pretty good but not perfect, and that's where the mutations come from. It's a numbers game all the way. The virus is not thinking about how to evade vaccine-induced immunity; it's throwing stuff randomly against every available wall in every available direction, and whatever sticks gets a chance to go on throwing some more. Remember, an unvaccinated person is still mounting an antibody defense against the virus - they're just having to do it from scratch, rather than having a pre-primed leg up like someone who's been vaccinated. The longer these infections go on inside human bodies, the more bets the virus gets to put down on the table. The good news is that so far, there is not much evidence that the virus is doing much evasion inside a given person during the course of normal infection.
So one key way to cut down on the odds of a nasty mutant popping up is to just keep the virus from reproducing so much. Cut down on the number of people it infects. When it does infect people, cut down on the amount of time it spends reproducing inside the body. These countermeasures are exactly what a mass vaccination program does. Fewer people get infected in the first place, and when they do get infected, their disease course tends in the great majority of cases to be shorter and milder. A nasty variant is almost certainly going to come up by accident, so let's not have so many accidents going on constantly around the clock, around the world.
...
a true vaccine-evading mutant is going to need a set of several mutations (off the existing variants) all at the same time. The vaccine-induced immune response looks like it's knocking down a lot of these intermediate-step mutations before they can keep on throwing off subsequent mutations on top of the first ones. These pathways are choked off before they can even get explored, and this "evolutionary smothering" is something that you don't see so dramatically when you're doing those in vitro experiments with specifically targeted small molecules mentioned at the top of this post. A broad antibody and T-cell response is a different thing altogether.
There is, then, every reason at both the population and individual level to expect that vaccination will strongly decrease the chances of a more dangerous coronavirus strain taking hold. If we'd had them earlier and were able to deploy them quickly and widely enough, we never would have seen the Delta variant in the first place. If we keep deploying them now, we will keep worse variants from even being able to form. Anyone who tells you that vaccines will make things worse is at best deeply misinformed and at worst lying to you for profit.'
https://www.science.org/content/blog-post/vaccines-will-not-produce-worse-variants
That's not so easy, because (for one thing) there are an enormous number of different antibodies involved (and an enormous number of T-cell recognition proteins). There are any number of ways to bind to a given protein target, and the adaptive immune system's whole function is to be ready for all kinds of targets and to hit them in all kinds of ways. And there's that constraint mentioned above: the virus still has to be able to function! Losing the entire Spike protein or mutating it completely beyond recognition would definitely evade vaccine-induced immunity, but it would also definitely produce a coronavirus that couldn't infect human cells in the way it's completely evolved to do. Coming up with a completely new infection route is (mutationally) extremely costly and complex, and not something that can be done "on the fly". Various coronaviruses use different human cell surface proteins to do their attack, but these have gradually developed and diverged over evolutionary time (hundreds of thousands, or millions of years) through untold numbers of tiny steps.
But it can be done, in principle. And as with everything in evolution, if it gets done at all, it'll get done by similarly untold numbers of individual mutants, and mutants on top of those mutants, until something appears that can both avoid being inactivated by the immune response and still infect cells and reproduce. There is no guarantee that such a virus can exist, and there is no guarantee that it can't. Evaluating the number of possibilies is frankly beyond computation - we didn't, for example, see the details of the Delta variant coming, and if you'd given someone that exact sequence last year, there's no guarantee that they would have been able to predict how much more infectious it would be.
The more chances you give the coronavirus to reproduce, the more mutations it will explore. Its proofreading system for reproduction is pretty good but not perfect, and that's where the mutations come from. It's a numbers game all the way. The virus is not thinking about how to evade vaccine-induced immunity; it's throwing stuff randomly against every available wall in every available direction, and whatever sticks gets a chance to go on throwing some more. Remember, an unvaccinated person is still mounting an antibody defense against the virus - they're just having to do it from scratch, rather than having a pre-primed leg up like someone who's been vaccinated. The longer these infections go on inside human bodies, the more bets the virus gets to put down on the table. The good news is that so far, there is not much evidence that the virus is doing much evasion inside a given person during the course of normal infection.
So one key way to cut down on the odds of a nasty mutant popping up is to just keep the virus from reproducing so much. Cut down on the number of people it infects. When it does infect people, cut down on the amount of time it spends reproducing inside the body. These countermeasures are exactly what a mass vaccination program does. Fewer people get infected in the first place, and when they do get infected, their disease course tends in the great majority of cases to be shorter and milder. A nasty variant is almost certainly going to come up by accident, so let's not have so many accidents going on constantly around the clock, around the world.
...
a true vaccine-evading mutant is going to need a set of several mutations (off the existing variants) all at the same time. The vaccine-induced immune response looks like it's knocking down a lot of these intermediate-step mutations before they can keep on throwing off subsequent mutations on top of the first ones. These pathways are choked off before they can even get explored, and this "evolutionary smothering" is something that you don't see so dramatically when you're doing those in vitro experiments with specifically targeted small molecules mentioned at the top of this post. A broad antibody and T-cell response is a different thing altogether.
There is, then, every reason at both the population and individual level to expect that vaccination will strongly decrease the chances of a more dangerous coronavirus strain taking hold. If we'd had them earlier and were able to deploy them quickly and widely enough, we never would have seen the Delta variant in the first place. If we keep deploying them now, we will keep worse variants from even being able to form. Anyone who tells you that vaccines will make things worse is at best deeply misinformed and at worst lying to you for profit.'
https://www.science.org/content/blog-post/vaccines-will-not-produce-worse-variants
Sunday, January 22, 2023
Friday, January 20, 2023
STAR TREK: THE ENTERPRISE PROJECT
Because why the hell not?
I wonder if you could make a shell of a full-sized ship that is helium filled and could be flown like a hot air balloon? Or a drone? Imagine seeing the Star Trek Enterprise in the sky.
Monday, January 16, 2023
Saturday, January 14, 2023
Friday, January 13, 2023
CDC identifies possible 'safety concern' for certain people receiving COVID vaccines | Fox News
"Rapid-response investigation of the signal in the VSD raised a question of whether people 65 and older who have received the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine, Bivalent were more likely to have an ischemic stroke in the 21 days following vaccination compared with days 22-44 following vaccination."
"Neither Pfizer and BioNTech nor the CDC or the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) have observed similar findings across numerous other monitoring systems in the U.S. and globally and there is no evidence to conclude that ischemic stroke is associated with the use of the companies' COVID-19 vaccines," the spokesperson continued.
"Compared to published incidence rates of ischemic stroke in this older population, the companies to date have observed a lower number of reported ischemic strokes following the vaccination with the Omicron BA.4/BA.5-adapted bivalent vaccine. The CDC continues to recommend vaccination with the Pfizer-BioNTech Omicron BA.4/BA.5-adapted bivalent COVID-19 vaccine for all authorized ages and indications."
In a statement to Fox News Digital, a spokesperson for Pfizer said, "Pfizer and BioNTech have been made aware of limited reports of ischemic stroke that have been observed in the CDC Vaccine Safety DataLink (VSD) database in people 65 and older following vaccination with the Omicron BA.4/BA.5-adapted bivalent COVID-19 Vaccine by Pfizer and BioNTech."
The agency also said that the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) managed by CDC and FDA has not seen an increase in reporting of ischemic strokes following the updated (bivalent) vaccine.
"Neither Pfizer and BioNTech nor the CDC or the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) have observed similar findings across numerous other monitoring systems in the U.S. and globally and there is no evidence to conclude that ischemic stroke is associated with the use of the companies' COVID-19 vaccines," the spokesperson continued.
"Compared to published incidence rates of ischemic stroke in this older population, the companies to date have observed a lower number of reported ischemic strokes following the vaccination with the Omicron BA.4/BA.5-adapted bivalent vaccine. The CDC continues to recommend vaccination with the Pfizer-BioNTech Omicron BA.4/BA.5-adapted bivalent COVID-19 vaccine for all authorized ages and indications."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)