My brief analysis tells me that there will be some grinding down in Q2 with a negative peak in Q3. While the virus seems to be "managed", the consequences of millions of people dropping out of the workforce in the first world is not that pronounced. We will see bank failures and maybe dozens of cascades, all leading to the point where someone has to stand up and swallow it.
Solid states go into deep debt today, previously failed states will chew on it for the decade to come.
I looked at the data flow paradigm a couple of years ago. Back then I thought that the difference to just a "ordinary" functions is not that big, and for performance (which is important for my data work), you do not want to deviate from the traditional way too much.
Anyone felt the same or can provide a real-world problem, where data flow is actually working better that other solutions?
It’s like a cache, except it keeps itself in sync with the database automatically and generates “materialised views” using data-flows based on the queries that get asked of it and will automatically generate new ones if someone makes a query it doesn’t already have a data flow for. Parts of data flows can also be shared across views.
The paper linked in the github goes into detail about the performance gains, but it easily outperforms straight database calls and caching setups.
If your functions are transforming chunks of data into other formats/types, you are already doing what data flow graphs are doing. Generalizing can give much more structured concurrency.
I've used Eclipse on and off and always found it to be a bit clunky. Unhelpful error messages coming from the fifty layers of abstraction you did not know about before.
Back in the days, I always preferred netbeans - it was just more of a product, less of an exercise in object-oriented abstractionism.
Today, I am a happy user of vim (and vscode, if I need to) - I left behind the heaps of design patterns, thankfully. What this feels like to me is a trying to jump on a train, that's long gone.
It's an artificial scarcity, though. We have the most productive technologies ever - we are just not very good to put a better part of them flow towards common good.
The amount of senseless applications and waste is staggering.
Good points. Plus the demand for tech is higher than ever due to the productivity advantage. There are pockets of that common-good advantage being demonstrated here and there, so maybe that can be patternized and better demonstrated to the whole. I'm sure there are immediately applicable ways to redirect a lot of the waste.
Why pretend and cloud the idea, that the main reason a person has a "job" today is to accumulate capital for capital.
As long as this notion persists (which will be for many more decades I fear) power inequalities will just mean that some will suffer more (those who do not have resources in the first place).
Hey, you know, I am really sorry, but thanks for all the capital you helped us to accumulate - which we own and not you. Bye!
I imagine the most profound societal change will come from getting rid of this notion and the resulting reduction in power asymmetries.
In return for helping the company build capital you were paid a monetary value in return. A quick solution to the problem you are presenting is to invest the money you were paid into other companies or start your own company so you too can have 'capital'.
However, what I am observing is that 'capital' gets its hand in any aspect of life, the formerly family owned coffee machine maker, lingerie producer and the outdoor specialist went through couple of private equity hands - for what? For injecting capital to trim down ops, expand, then get out of a position?
After watching hundreds of hours of investing conference videos and interviews there is one thing, that really got me: why is this field so sad? I believe it's because all they ever talk about what they "own". The cannot make, invent, heal, fight, cook, write, harvest or any other human activity - all they do is "own" something that is valuable to others.
Imagine kids playing in the playground and all the talk about is what each of them owns. They cannot read, write, play an instrument, tell jokes, do tricks, etc. - no, but they control those who can and are productive.
I am not sure why, but I'd rather have a kid with talents than one with lots of "assets" (even though in this world talent does not matter, if you've got the assets).
----
Warren Buffet was once asked by the audience, what you should do, if you have artistic talents and want to live them out, but you do not want to starve? He did not really care, understandably.
No, not stupid. It's one scenario, but the time span is absent: do we reach 0.7 in three years or three months? At the current rate probably the latter, which might increase the 0.01 as well, because of a certain overwhelming of the health care system in the US (e.g. a young boy in California has not been treated because he could not pay, so he died).
If you're talking about the case I think you're talking about,
"""
However, Los Angeles’ County Department of Public Health later said the teen’s death was taken off a list of deaths associated with Covid-19 in the area. The department said the CDC would complete an investigation into the teen’s death. It remained unclear what symptoms he may have been experiencing prior to his death.
"""
The 17yo fatality that Gavin Newsom mentioned in a news report was also later reclassified as not CV related.
The late 21yo patient in the UK was never tested for CV.
Nobody knows what is coming, but I'm in the 1M+ camp as well. US is so ill-equipped plus administration is very aware, how devastating the economic consequences are even now (2T stimulus and infinite FED liquidity are already in effect today). Let this spread for two more weeks and the administration might loose their countenance and will declare: "we cannot save both the infected and our country, so we will save our country".
To be fair, the market isn't pricing deaths of old and sick people. It is pricing the suppression of economic activity as a result of the lockdown. If the whole of the US were really infected by May and if by June the lockdown would be off and the virus in the rear mirror, you would see a big market rallye.
How true. I believe the US will see an even worse fallout than Italy - because people who can afford private medical personal tend to question whether healthcare is a business model at all ("Is curing patients a sustainable business model?", GS).
America has the most uplifting and free-spirited legacy, but it has been transformed in the past decades into the most primitive form of greed and selfishness possible. Covid-19 is only the eye-opener.
FTR: I believe the US will lose 5% of its population to the coronavirus in 2020. Not being panicky, just multiplying.
COVID-19 is going to hit us hard, but I believe deeply in America's ability to adapt and pull together. We are fractured and almost-leaderless today, but the United States tends to do very well against a common challenge, once the scale of the challenge is understood.
The United States's greatest challenges of the 20th century were only dealt with after the country had strong leadership at the top. There is zero chance the U.S. will get that aforementioned strong leadership before January 2021 at the earliest.
5%? That's like 15-20 million people. Doubt it. We, the United States, have a lot of problems. We're greedy. We're arrogant. While we can't prevent all deaths, we're not going to let 15-20 million people die to a virus in this modern age of technology and healthcare.
Technology doesn't help once the number of cases needing intensive care exceed the capacity. Healthcare doesn't exist without technology.
Italy exceeded that limit in the last two days, so now they have to decide who has the highest chance of survival, and those people get intensive care, if it is available.
Coronavirus has death rate of 1-2%. It might be slightly higher if the health care system gets overwhelmed, but the US has a head start on Italy/China in terms of social distancing measures.
While the true mortality of COVID-19 will take some time to fully understand, the data we have so far indicate that the crude mortality ratio (the number of reported deaths divided by the reported cases) is between 3-4%, the infection mortality rate (the number of reported deaths divided by the number of infections) will be lower.
I will make a bet with you for whatever amount of money that you want that every single prediction you just made is false. On a per capita basis, the US will have a better time than Italy. The US will lose nowhere near 5% of its population. Not even 1%.
Happy to formalize it and bet for real, if you'd like.
Solid states go into deep debt today, previously failed states will chew on it for the decade to come.