Sorted by New

Wiki Contributions


FWIW, my friend who lives in downtown Ottawa sent me this link, written by a neighbor he knows personally.  (It's an account of him meeting some of the truckers parked on his street, who are nice people and considerate.)  My friend went down to meet them too, and confirms this account.

I live a few miles from downtown and so haven't seen what's going on personally.

Attackers aren't given infinite attempts, and even if they are, God doesn't give them infinite time.  So what you really want is to minimize the probability that the attacker guesses your password before giving up.

Suppose the attacking bot can make 200,000 attempts.  By the first scheme, the probability the attacker guesses the password is .95 (plus an infinitesimal).  By the first scheme but with a three-character password on a high roll, the probability is 1.00 (with 50 different characters, there are only 125K three-character words, so success in the remaining 199,999 attempts is certain).

By this measure, both passwords are weak, but the second is weaker than the first.

My Blackberry locks attackers out after 10 tries.  So I would choose n=10 rather than n=200000.  By that measure, the first scheme is roughly p=.950000, and the second is roughly p=.950072.

Fair enough.  The question is then, does a vaccinated person's immune system take care of the virus so fast that the viral load remains "extremely low" enough to result in a negative test?

That seems counterintuitive given that Elizabeth says vaccinated people are more likely to be symptomatic, but I suppose it's possible that the immune system would trigger covid-19 symptoms even while maintaining a low viral load.

Is the vaccinated person's lower viral load enough to trigger a positive test, especially for those with symptoms?  

If it is, shouldn't we be thinking of "reinfections" as those cases of serious disease, rather than simply positive tests?

One thing I've never found the answer to: is a positive test evidence of disease?  It seems to me that a vaccinated person inhales the virus just as readily as an unvaccinated person, but the vaccinated person's immune system fights it off before symptoms (or before serious symptoms) appear.  

In that case, wouldn't it be normal and expected for vaccinated people to sometimes test positive, in the sense of "there exist copies of the coronavirus in the upper respiratory system"?


Why do you say research before 2013 is of lower quality?

With a seven-day incubation period, does that mean it's 0 protection until about day 4, then near-perfect protection after that?  (As per jimrandomh's comment of 4/17.)

Very well stated.  I would be interested in a link to something that describes that principle, the outcome of the prediction process.

Correction to above: the quote from p. 206 refers to high schools, not colleges.  

For colleges, I found a page here that lists 25th and 75th ACT percentiles.  Some pairs of schools have no overlap at all; for instance, Ohio State's middle interval is (27, 31), while Vanderbilt is (32, 35).  The average for college enrolees, per this study, was 20.1, with an SD of 4.33.  So Vanderbilt's 25th percentile is almost +3 SD.

For GPA ... the 25th percentile for Vanderbilt is 3.75.  The mean in this study was 2.72, with an SD of 0.65.  So the 25th percentile for GPA was only around +1.6 SD.

For ACE at Vanderbilt, the 75th percentile is 0.92 SD higher than the 25th.  If the same was true for GPA, the 75th percentile would have to be 4.34, which is clearly impossible, since the upper limit is 4.00.

So that supports the idea that for a given school, ACE has a narrower range than GPA.

Load More