Dhivehi is currently not supported, unfortunately. We view this as a starting point and are committed to expanding to many other languages as in the spirit of our project name.
Seems anecdotally true for many so called "Elite" careers, ie. Investment Banking, Management Consultant, Law, etc. They mainly hire from "Elite" schools.
Not to say tech doesn't pay fantastically well but it's seen as a trade within law/banking/media circles, especially by the older crowds. It's definitely not in the same category.
In regards to FAANG, it will help but it's way more fluid than some law firms that only hire Ivy League.
I don't think its seen as a trade, plenty of people in tech have PhDs or other degrees which are significantly more difficult than those required for finance, law or media. Its just more meritocratic than those fields which rely heavily on nepotism. So even if it pays well, its not seen as a marker of class like some of those are, which is a great thing imo. Tech is also significantly less white and full of immigrants (because of the meritocracy) which contributes to it not being a marker of class but of merit.
> plenty of people in tech have PhDs or other degrees which are significantly more difficult than those required for finance, law or media. Its just more meritocratic than those fields which rely heavily on nepotism.
That's quite a self-serving narrative for us on HN. Do we have any evidence that the degrees are harder to get or that tech is more meritocratic?
> Tech is also significantly less white and full of immigrants (because of the meritocracy)
Tech's diversity record isn't evidence of meritocracy. Compare women in law, business, and media and those in tech, for example. It also may be that law, business, and media require exceptional cultural communication and understanding, which may be hard for a new immigrant to learn.
Yes its definitely harder for a new immigrant to understand the cultural norms required to work in a law or media (i think plenty work in "business"). But the fact that a field requires a particular cultural background makes it less meritocratic. Hiring people who are "like you" is the furthest possible thing from meritocracy. Technology work is generally pure logic, which is pretty universal and universality breeds meritocracy. In terms of the degrees being harder I don't have hard evidence, but having done some humanities and some math I think its pretty obvious which type of work is more complex.
They generally cast their net wider, but if you want to have a job offer lined up at one of them at graduation then it helps.
Later in the career though, all bets are off. You only have to get into an interview room and solve 5 questions on a whiteboard (6, if you include the phone screen). If you're in Silicon Valley and have "software engineer" on your LinkedIn profile you're guaranteed to get at least one shot at each company.
Or (c) I will tell everyone that I'm waiting so that more at-risk people can have access it to first, but secretly I'll be happy others are field-testing it for me...
The incentives seem to align: if I were a front-line at-risk worker I'd be much more accepting of possible risk than in my present situation of staying at home all day.
Speaking as someone who already has some (but not all) well-understood vaccines contraindicated and has to figure out which category covid vaccines will fall in...
(d) telling myself that (c) is how I feel is how I assuage my feelings of disappointment at being old enough decision makers believe I'm likely to behave responsibly, but young enough + no apparent extra risk factors enough that I'm likely to be near last to get access.
Or (d) I will wait to see if Corona mutates so much over the next year that the vaccine is a yearly process.
Edit: I feel like some people didn’t notice the mink culling in Denmark which was caused by fears that version of the virus would make the vaccines useless.
So if the strains change every year because the virus mutates so much then the current strain wouldn't be so common. It's basically what happens with the flu. Also a new strain can be more infectious, which I believe was the case with the mink strain.
But you did say it would be "useless" if there were different strains and now you are saying "there are multiple strains".
I haven't seen anything about the current vaccines not being effective to what is already out there. If that is true then what you are saying is wrong, because the fact that the vaccines can treat what is now filling up hospitals and killing thousands per day means they are the opposite of useless and in fact one of the most valuable things in existence right now.
Even the regular flu shot was recommended as being more important this year so that there would be less spread and less to deal with.
> I'm just stating I am going to wait and see if the problem is actually solved before acting like it.
No, that isn't what you said. That might be what you are trying to claim now that you said something ridiculous.
> But you did say it would be "useless" if there were different strains and now you are saying "there are multiple strains".
Yea... That's what the experts are saying, you know the scientists. Are we not to believe them now? And the experts have said if it mutates alot that a vaccine could only ve good againist a certain amount for a certain amount of time. You see a vaccine could work againist strain 1-8 but then stop working on strain 9+.
> I haven't seen anything about the current vaccines not being effective to what is already out there. If that is true then what you are saying is wrong, because the fact that the vaccines can treat what is now filling up hospitals and killing thousands per day means they are the opposite of useless and in fact one of the most valuable things in existence right now.
Overall, this paragraph is moot because you failed to understand my original point, which I'll explain further down when responding to another line. But the fact you haven't heard anything about how a brand new vaccine just being rolled out this week. And I believe there were thoughts it wouldn't work againist the mink strain that Denmark had to cull it's entire mink population to stop.
> Even the regular flu shot was recommended as being more important this year so that there would be less spread and less to deal with.
Who said that? Last I read, they were expecting the flu to be pretty much non exsistant this year due to all the measures to stop corona stopping the flu. They seen this in the south and expect it to be true for the north.
> No, that isn't what you said. That might be what you are trying to claim now that you said something ridiculous.
Ok... I said something ridiculous? I repeated something the experts said. The flu vaccine is needed to be done every year, why? Because the virus mutates so much that it's only good for one year and then useless.
My original comment was merely there was another option. It didn't advocate for anything, didn't state any opinion, etc. You seemed to misunderstand a rather simple thing and on a massive scale.
You seem uninformed on this matter. The experts have been saying for a while, even if we get a vaccine (which we have) it may not to stop it as it may only work for a short period of time. And the fact they won't be able to vaccinate everyone in a timely fashion due to production limits, means corona could be around for decades.
And if you're going to carry on saying I said something come back with the quotes or please keep your thoughts to yourself.
I think the implication is, if it's available to you, the at-risk people have already had a chance to get it. At least that's what I've heard from the rollout strategy.
I'm not aware of any localities or nations that are just dumping the vaccines off at a pharmacy and letting people do what they want. Everywhere has a roll-out plan, with healthcare workers and high-risk individuals prioritized over the totally healthy mid-20's athlete. So (b) in your list isn't really a concern. If you have access to it, you should get it.
I agree. This is a bad poll that can be used to derive whatever meaning you want to derive from it. There’s no reason we can’t have fifteen more specific options listed.
Is it no because you don’t need it because you already had the virus? Is it no because you’re allergic to vaccines? Is it no because the virus is a hoax?
It might be a good idea to get the vaccine even if you've already had COVID. There's not been any CDC recommendations about it, but here's what they do say.
> There is not enough information currently available to say if or for how long after infection someone is protected from getting COVID-19 again; this is called natural immunity. Early evidence suggests natural immunity from COVID-19 may not last very long, but more studies are needed to better understand this. Until we have a vaccine available and the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices makes recommendations to CDC on how to best use COVID-19 vaccines, CDC cannot comment on whether people who had COVID-19 should get a COVID-19 vaccine. [1]
Suffice it to say, I'll do whatever the CDC recommends. I've already had COVID, so I'm guessing I'll go last. But at the same time, I'll get the vaccine if it is recommended.
Everything I've read has suggested that people who've had COVID should still get the vaccine anyway, as it could act as a booster. And that, whether through natural immunity or a vaccine it looks likely that we'll need to get it 'topped up' after awhile.
Has there been medical advice anywhere that people who've had COVID don't need to get vaccinated?
I see MobileNet and ResNet embedded as application resources. Because of the speed of the training, I suspect they are doing feature transfer learning.
While the UI is quite nice (thanks to Mike Matas, I am sure), I don't see a strong advantage to using this on MacOs, when CreateML is available. CreateML doesn't have the simple interface of Lobe, but the UI is quite accessible and gives you access to additional classifies, like sound, text and tabular data. If you need ever more power, you can use TuriCreate if you want to stay in the Apple ecosystem.
The simplicity of the UI is a feature, but also a disadvantage when you start having more than a handful of labels and training images. I totally see how Lobe could be a nice intro into the world of labelling and classification.
The model training time using Lobe is comparable to similar transfer learning tasks using other machine learning frameworks. I did a comparison between Lobe and Turi Create using transfer learning with ResNet and the time were similar. Training using a complete convnet would take much long, unless the Lobe team has made some serious advances.
