The social graph is 90% of the value of a social network and the hardest resource to build. Without it an exact copy of Facebook built by someone else is useless.
It's only useless if your goal is to have an archival copy of the entire social network. That isn't the goal for most social networks. The build around communities and grow/evolve over time.
Quantum computing is fascinating, but this news is not as as big a leap as the article suggests. Dwave quantum annealing which is much noisier than stable quantum structures (universal quantum computers) being worked on by IBM which are more likely to solve today’s problem with quantum circuits.
I have read most, but not all of his work but did't know that's how he died.
I wasn't old enough in the 90s to understand HIV/AIDS completely but remember it being a death sentence (I remember a rumor that you could get it by using public toilets)
This is a pretty good time to remember Ryan White, who is a fairly under-appreciated contemporary hero. They called this the "gay plague" at one point, and in a derogatory way. To all of our collective shame, it probably would have killed far fewer if people didn't think it was exclusive to gay communities.
It's shameful that people assumed HIV was exclusive to gay communities, likely due in large part to homophobic prejudice rather than facts.
This is not the only shameful thing that has ever happened in the world, but I'm not sure what your example of a shameful action has to do with the GP's.
I didn't think it had to be said, but apparently I was wrong. I know the gp is a flagged/dead now, but I came back to the comment today and wanted to thank you for your succinct and correct summary of my implicit point.
Wasn't it more "only affects people having risky promiscuous sex", it's not like HIV is the only transmissible sexual disease.
Ensuring people can adopt a sexually hedonistic lifestyle without caring about protecting themselves or their partners from disease seems pretty low priority to society?
People (in general, based on my observations) only care about anti-vaxxers because of their effect on others. Isn't it the same? A group choose to do something that exposes them to greater risk of disease; society steps in when the impact on others increases.
As a slight aside: Some consider that the reframing, in USA, of HIV as a general problem -- rather than being transmitted primarily amongst promiscuous male homosexuals -- as a great harm.
> Some consider that the reframing, in USA, of HIV as a general problem -- rather than being transmitted primarily amongst promiscuous male homosexuals -- as a great harm
I don't know what kind of fantasy land you come from but that's preposterous. I come from a city with one of the highest HIV populations in the world and it isn't just gay people who have it. My favorite author died of AIDS from a blood transfusion.
> A group choose to do something that exposes them to greater risk of disease; society steps in when the impact on others increases.
What a disgusting outlook. Everybody didn't decide at the Annual Gay Convention that they wanted to start introducing HIV into their population.
It's great that you think sexual promiscuity is comparable to the anti-vaxxer movement, but that's so far from the truth it's painful.
I care about each individual affected by the anti-vax group, including the involved children, not just those outside the anti-vax group it affects. I'm not only concerned when it starts affecting people I consider to be society's desirables.
I care about each kid involved in this crazy movement to mutilate your children's genitals at a young age to "switch their gender". Even if it doesn't affect me or other people.
I care about each person who has contracted HIV, not just homosexuals. I want them to be able to live happy lives despite living them different from mine.
That's called empathy. Caring for people outside of your immediate circle. It's something you should consider trying.
From what I remember back then it isn't that people assumed only gay people could catch it (otherwise why would absolutely everybody be paranoid about it)...
... but that plenty of people thought it was a convenient way to get rid of gay people. Genocide by omission, if you will.
We don't talk about this era anywhere near as much as we should.
> The correct medical diagnosis was Gay Related Immune Deficiency
The medical “GRID” diagnosis was wrong, while “HIV” was attacking gay men, it was also attacking straight people. They were being ignored because it was eliminating gay people. Hospital staff kicked gay people out as HIV diagnoses came in. My friends held their friends in their arms without medical care as they died because a government and medical association did nothing. If gay people had rights they would have been able to have more successful monogamous relationships. If they had government assistance they could have aided in stopping the spread. For 8 years the government did nothing. Clever trick to call it GRID, then once it blooms in straight populations change the official acronym. “Oh it happens in straight people too?!” Damn right.
> Of course anyone can get AIDS, but men who have sex with men have a much higher risk of contracting than any other group with the exception of IV drug users.
Male to male anal sex is a common and easy method for transmission, so is IV drug use. The greatest rate of new infection is African-American women. Why would you point out some groups and leave others out?
You’re ignore relative prevalence of the subjects getting infected. Sure, African-American women were infected, but that’s 4,000 out of a population of what? 35M? The rate compared to higher risk populations is still incredibly low.
In the UK, just over half of new infections are in heterosexuals.
The 8 countries with the highest HIV rates all have rates more than twice the rate of homosexuality, so even if every gay and lesbian person had HIV, a majority of people with HIV would not be gay or lesbian.
In the US in particular, new infections are 2:1 homosexual:heterosexual, but the USA isn’t the world.
Reportedly his family didn't publicize the matter at the time, due to the prejudice it would have triggered. His auto biography also does not mention it. It was only made public by his family, several years after his death.
Those tissue paper toilet seat covers only really appeared in public bathrooms in the 90s. I still think about how ridiculous they are in the context of HIV/AIDS, every time I see them.
Yeah, no. Even vigorous bareback anal sex transfers HIV only a minority of the time. Sitting on semen or menstrual fluid, or even rubbing it on your outer sphincter, is not going to give you HIV.
Downvoted for focusing on generating a disgust reaction instead of being aware of any scientific facts.
1) I like public toilet water splashing up into my anus
2) I want to relay scientific facts about the transmissibility about a disease that has a lot of fear, stigma, and falsehoods spread about it, often in the service of an anti-gay agenda.
To answer what you don't know: no, splashback can't transfer HIV.
> I don't know if that can transmit HIV or any other diseases
It's virtually impossible for HIV, you're time would be better spent planning how to spend your big lottery win. The reason anal sex is better at spreading HIV is because anal tearing allows it into the bloodstream, apart from that your anus is no different from your ass checks, you're arm or anywhere else.
Doesn't stuff in your intestines get naturally absorbed into your bloodstream by some mechanism? I always figured the danger with putting things in your ass was that you would bypass the safety mechanism that the stomach acids double as.
I'm not a doctor, but consider the size difference between molecules and viruses. Some quick googling puts the size of the aids virus at 0.1 micron and the size of a water molecule at 0.018 microns if I did the conversion right.
Getting from the toilet through the anus and into the intestines is it's own challenge. There's shit, multiple sphincters and bends in the way.
HN is a relatively sophisticated forum, as forums go. I'm not saying that you need to censor your language, more that a sense of decorum in phrasing could've gone a long way to avoiding downvoting.
Google wasn't responsible for any of the major breakthroughs in AI. The current AI boom is driven by deep learning[1], due to Alex Krizhevsky [2][3], who was then a Ph.D. student @ University of Toronto. Subsequently, several significant breakthroughs have been in Universities & outside Google or FAANGs (Siri, DeepMind were all questions)
