I appreciate the attempt to ground the discussion in research, but as MillironX pointed out elsewhere, ivermectin turns out to be less effective on Cochliomyia hominivorax (which the article is about) than on Chrysomya bezziana (which the paper you cited is about).
That is interesting, although I'm not seeing the comment you're referencing. I read the article this morning, but I hadn't noted that there were possibly multiple types of screw worm. Looks like the Cochliomyia hominivorax is only one that the Americas typically have to deal with, so that was the only one that made sense in the context. However, that a anti-parasitic is more effective at killing one type of screw worm than another doesn't mean much by itself. That statement would hold true even if it had 99% efficacy against one type vs 98% efficacy against another.
The comment I referred to is here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43881065#43882771. It links to https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9403981/. Looking at the abstract now (I hadn't before) it claims that injected doramectin was fully effective while ivermectin had limited effectiveness (29% of cases not treated). It doesn't seem to give a comparison between types of screwworm.
> what I've come to understand is that this just isn't going to help.
This is false though.
Austin, Texas built a lot of apartments and then rents fell 22%. That's a big win for a lot of people seeing lower prices!
NYC is not a place that builds very much in proportion to the population.
I think that the claim that "supply and demand do not apply to housing" is an extraordinary one, and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Maybe Austin is an outlier. They have high property taxes. Or people left because of those taxes Most cities that built a lot of housing saw it bought up by investors.
Investors only invest in things with a good return. It's why they don't buy up, say, nails, because the nail makers would just produce a lot more nails to sell to them and they'd be left sitting with a bunch of nails.
They invest in housing because it's scarce because we don't build enough of it.
And if you look at the actual numbers, large-scale institutional investors just aren't that big a factor. It's another bogeyman for people desperate to avoid the solution to not having enough housing: building more housing.
Austin is an example of the market balancing out when allowed to do so.
Recently some socialist lackwit on Twitter was railing that YIMBYs only lowered prices from $600k to $500k. This person apparently did not understand that the difference - $20k up front and $700/mo for 30 years - is the margin between affordable and not affordable for tens of millions of ordinary people.
In case anyone reading thinks otherwise: you can absolutely be a socialist and a YIMBY. Maybe your goal is Vienna style housing. The only thing you need to acknowledge is that cities need 'enough' housing.
Yeah but there's this entire genre of hammer-and-sickle-in-bio online guy who thinks socialism is about ideals, not the material experience of the proletariat. Those guys think we should outlaw home building until after the revolution.
> Austin, Texas built a lot of apartments and then rents fell 22%.
This is false. Just look at the chart [1]. All that's happened is some of the pandemic price gouging, something landlords were being sued over [2].
We simply cannot capitalism our way out of this problem.
> i think that the claim that "supply and demand do not apply to housing"
Where did I say that?
Speaking more generally, the idea of a "free market" is a myth, particularly for housing. It's one of the most manipulated and politicized markets there is.
But supply and demand do apply and it has been a political goal for decades to ensure that supply will be constrained.
Landlords would be happy if rents never fell though. They're not dropping them because "gosh, maybe we charged too much during the pandemic". New housing was built and landlords had to compete for tenants. Dropping prices during a time when inflation is still a thing is a pretty big deal, and very beneficial to thousands of people.
The housing market is, indeed, anything but free. That's a core idea behind the YIMBY movement: make it legal to build more kinds of housing, rather than just meet demand by outward sprawl.
> But supply and demand do apply and it has been a political goal for decades to ensure that supply will be constrained.
That's what YIMBY is about: fighting back against those constraints. They have hugely detrimental consequences for people, the economy and the environment.
In terms of "capitalism", I think most YIMBYs are pragmatic - capitalism is the system we have in the US, so we need to leverage it as much as possible to get the housing we need. If we could get Vienna style social housing, I think a lot of YIMBYs would be happy to sign up. You still need Vienna style zoning and building codes to get that, though.
It feels like after living through the great recession, a pandemic, incipient authoritarianism, that that system unravelling is exactly the kind of thing that could fall apart on some of us when we near our retirement years.
We're talking about 1982, not 'mid to late nineties'. None of those chips even existed. Silicon Graphics Unix was running on 680x0 based series 1000 machines (and wasn't called IRIX yet). HP/UX was running on 680x0 based HP9000 series. AIX was a couple of years away and would first run on the RT/PC development of the 801 project, not on POWER. In 1982-ish IBM did have a Unix machine tho...the 9000 series, which was a 68000 running Xenix. DEC hadn't started PRISM, much less ALPHA then...it's Unix was Ultrix on VAX and PDP-11.
No, there weren't. There were the few you mentioned, and a dozen or two others. I worked with most of them. The point was that in the early 80s, there were a far larger number. The only real similarity was that like the '80s were the days of mc68k and Unisoft, the majority of the 90s Unix vendors were x86 and System V, all from the same code base.
That brings back memories. The first time I ever heard of Digital Unix was in college looking at netcraft.com's web server ranking, where it showed that www.amazon.com was running on OSF/1. I figured if Amazon was using it, it must be worth looking into. Found an Alphastation in an IT storage room and had some fun playing around with it. Good memories.
Yes, Alpha was incredible for the time. Sparc was a dog in comparison. Software wise, Solaris felt more standard though. I remember having to tweak open source stuff to compile on Digital Unix. Solaris almost always just worked.
This is pretty useful, actually, downvoters. My friends and I were discussing this video yesterday and I was pretty irritated that it took 10 whole minutes to debunk the social media hyperbole. That could have easily been a blog post that I could have skimmed in 1 minute.
It's a textbook case of why I tend to dislike video as a format.
An HN user that shares their own summary is providing a unique perspective that only they could offer. That's a great contribution to the site that reinforces community and gets encouraged.
An HN user that shares an LLM summary is cluttering the site with the output of a program that anybody could have run. That's just noise that detracts from our community.
HN isn't structured to handle programmatic participation the way Twitter/BlueSky/etc are. It maintains its distinguishing character by being a community of people talking to people instead, and it's appropriate to vote/flag in accordance with that.
Ideally, people posting a video link will include a short summary. HN is heavily text-based and unlike text links, you can't skim/scan and decide whether it's worth to spend 10 mins. It doesn't help that most videos are pretty information-sparse and should properly be a 2-3 min read.
Anyway, I don't mind the downvotes, but it'd be nice if people started including summaries with video links.
I disagree: I think it's a decent summary and it's convenient to be able to read it inline with the rest of the discussion without having to go fiddle with some LLM.
And I don't think everyone has an LLM just sitting around that can summarize a video from a link.
Having wasted 10 minutes of my life watching the video, it's also an accurate summary - "no, shipping has not stopped completely". I would not be happy if they'd just pasted it in without checking that.
Videos that take forever to get to the point are something I find incredibly annoying. Maybe you all have a lot more time on your hands to listen to people spend 5 minutes explaining simple charts.
With a written article I can read a bit at the beginning, skim the contents and still get an idea of what it's about and decide whether I want to read more.
Videos are much more difficult to skim or glance over and the beginning is often some boring intro or music or some dudes asking each other how they've been or something equally wasteful of my time.
I think you’re saying this jokingly but it would be an improvement. Most people don’t read the article. This is partially laziness but also has to do with consistency: I know what a Hacker News thread will look like and how it will perform whenever I open one, whereas a lot of the submissions are from sites that are borderline unusable without an adblocker. Posting the full article in the thread would be a vast improvement, but I can’t imagine it would be feasible owing to copyright issues.
You might consider using Sponsorblock. It has a highlight feature that often allows you to jump to the main point of the video as determined by user-generated submissions.
> An HN user that shares their own summary is providing a unique perspective that only they could offer. That's a great contribution to the site that reinforces community and gets encouraged.
A user shared a link. Another user provided a summary of that link. I don’t need the second user to provide his own unique take on the link.
> An HN user that shares an LLM summary is cluttering the site with the output of a program that anybody could have run.
You could make the same argument about throwing paywalled links into the Wayback Machine. It does not add a unique perspective to the discussion and anyone could do it themselves, but those links are almost always at the top of the thread.
The problem is that no layman can know whether the summary is correct without watching the video, so it takes 11 minutes instead of 10 to assess the information with the summary.
A few relevant charts from the video in the blog post, with links to authoritative sources is plenty to understand that he's correct, without sitting through an entire 10 minutes of video.
You’re right, but if I want an LLM to summarize a video I can do it myself. I come to HN to talk to humans; talking to AIs makes me depressed. That’s why I downvote immediately every time anyone posts LLM content here.
No, they're dying because of a global financial system which systematically steals from them by corrupting their governments into making decisions which benefit large western corporations at their expense, while depriving them of resource royalties and opportunities to work for themselves.
International trade agreements and political over-engineering of the global order are to blame.
Where are all the other concerned countries stepping in to help since the US has left? Why is the US the only country that is considered responsible for the problems of foreign countries while every other country is given the luxury of focusing only on their domestic affairs?
If that's what you want to happen, you say "in a year, we're going to cut off this aid" so that there is time for someone else to step in.
But they just cut it off from one day to the next in a place with challenging logistics, ensuring that some of the world's poorest people are likely to die so the world's wealthiest man can muck around in politics as a hobby.
The desired outcome isn't capturing hearts and minds, it's preventing easily preventable diseases and deaths for what amount to pennies in the federal budget.
No, we've been hated since Vietnam. There was a brief period after 9/11.
From my prospective everyone hates America, but weirdly wants to migrate here at he same time. (Except for the online minority who threaten to leave but never do)
Why should we send $240 million to Zambia? Is it the United States taxpayers' responsibility to treat all of the developing world's problems? How much foreign aid is enough?
The United States is approaching 37 trillion dollars of debt. There will be no aid to Zambia or any other country if we default on that debt.
I’m struck by how some still seem unable to grasp the power of soft influence. Africa now has even fewer incentives to side with anyone but China. America’s strength has long rested on its deep alliances and its knack for creating prosperity abroad—but that advantage is eroding fast.
Are you struck at the possibility of a inner-city family on welfare, or poor rural areas thinking that the US should be spending fungible dollars on them and not someone half way across the world?
They do by lowering taxes. This money can be used to keep local communities funded.
We will probably never be in agreement with government having more money to inefficiently distribute vs keeping it in the pockets of the earners. Sorry.
Well they are not doing that they actually planned to cut local welfare even more. So you make your poorer people poorer and lost influence over the world. I'm honestly struck with that.
Politicians which are drastically cutting foreign aid usually doesn't increase it locally because they do not agree with the whole concept.
They do by lowering taxes. This money can be used to keep local communities funded.
We will probably never be in agreement with government having more money to inefficiently distribute vs keeping it in the pockets of the earners. Sorry.
Your link does not say that. It says that there have been models predicting an increase in deaths over the next 'x' years while giving stories of numerous people who are facing bureaucratic hurdles moving over to the alternative clinics. The death projections assume there will be no replacement for USAID which is not a reasonable assumption. As the article emphasizes, they are already being replaced - though it's taking some time to get over the hurdles and get the bureaucracy working more effectively.
But this is part of the reason I am quite happy with USAID being ended. The goal of effective charity should be to make itself obsolete. We can see both that that was entirely possible here, but also in no meaningful way pursued at all. They could have spent those years and millions of dollars funding the infrastructure and other pipelines necessary make sure people were aware of and could easily access these state (or other private charity) clinics. Instead they just acted as a dependency creating drug distributor. In one case having a guy literally just handing out drugs, at his discretion, at a truck stop.
For some weird psychological reason though a lot of people seem to prefer that the corruption is explicit and open perhaps because the hidden aspect of it makes it easy to imagine more nefarious things happening while when it's blatant like this it's easier to minimize it with a "what's the big deal, it's just a little tax cut for Tesla".
But that doesn't mean everyone who has made that much money is evil.
reply