Arielle Popstar

I think the more correct word would be a hypotheses. It is the left wing websites that call something a theory even when it is yet unproven but they are hopeful it will be.

Nothing to see here.

My area also has the problem where the covid19 death count is around 75-80% in nursing and retirement facilities. Most of them have been in strict lockdown mode for months now and yet the outbreaks keep happening in them without being able to determine the exact cause of that. It is somewhat reminiscent of the Legionnaires disease in the 70's where it took a long time to isolate first the disease and then the mode of transmission which was discovered to be the air conditioning. I remember reading an article last month about who to vaccinate first and there was some question of whether the senior citizens should be first being that their immune systems were less likely able to withstand any potential issues of the vaccines. So here is a case of them being vaccinated and yet dying from Covid19 anyway. We don't know if the ones who caught it were those who had already been vaccinated. If so, then that points to a problem in itself. Correlation doesn't imply causation but it does not mean there isn't one. Mostly my point was that just because a site questions the timing of the vaccinations and the outbreak, should not put the story automatically in the conspiracy theory bin. The science should be questioned which was exactly what the author of the original article did. "Is the timing just a strange coincidence?"

What scares me is people so desperate for something to work that they will blind themselves to any clues that there might be a problem.

That may very well be the case but after that many deaths and the timing I would think it warrants an in depth investigation.

It is based on a story from a different source though as per the provided link in the story: https://www.syracuse.com/coronavirus/2021/01/covid-19-outbreak-at-auburn-nursing-home-infects-137-residents-kills-24.html

Think I have to agree with you from the perspective that with Big Tech's moves against Parler, it puts those using their services on eggshells. Who will be next and for what? No doubt there will be at the very least an increased moderation in forums that might discuss any political aspects because of the tendency for them to get overly dramatic and blown out of proportion.

Or the ability to do an anonymous review though I can see where that might be abused.

If I may I'd like to point out that Alina Lyvette created Lumiya without being privy to the institutional knowledge of S/L's backend and yet developed a very usable app. I have to wonder if in some cases that backend knowledge is more of a hindrance that will overly complicate it and slow the development down to a crawl. It is already going on months now for the text part and it is still barely usable. Apple's own problems further complicate it to a point where it is my opinion they should just shelve the ios part for now and concentrate on the android app as coding for it is well established and there is already a good ui plan in Lumiya. No need to reinvent that wheel.

Maybe if more people would give negative reviews of such products or their demo's, more people would have an idea of what not to buy and the creators themselves might start paying more attention to what they are putting on the market.

That doesn't seem to apply to mobile development from the way I was/am hearing in the TPV meetings. Keira Linden seems to be in charge and spokesperson for that.

Well graphical viewers for Mobile platforms should have no effect on backward or future compatibility other than if the Lab would finally settle on whether to use Vulkan renderer as has been brought up a few times. No doubt there are other features that can be brought in that similarly would not have too much impact and besides, it does beg the question of how far back the backward compatibility should extend. As to the viewer, I would actually prefer the official one to be more like Firestorm and I think most in S/L would agree with that. Combined with the professionalism of the Firestorm support team, the official one is the one that needs a lot of work to come to the same level of sleek professionalism. Easily accessible support in general would be something the Lab could come up a lot higher in for that matter. That would likely result in better new user retention. Those numbers look really off. I did see that over on Inara Pey's blog too so not questioning your accuracy but seriously, where the heck are these 350k + new users every month? The New User Registrations from https://vwinformation.com/ look much more realistic and show a strong downward slide until they stopped reporting in April of 2020.

Yes I agree it seems rather pointless for the idea of gaining new users. Its only point would be for existing users and even from that perspective, they are complicating the crap out of it by creating them platform specific rather than one usable on a cross platform browser. A graphical one however would be relevant for an even larger market than what S/L has access to now simply because the mobile platforms have overtaken the desktop/laptop market that is capable of running an S/L viewer. It wouldn't be capable of the full viewer experience but then at the same time, it wouldn't require nearly the same learning curve as those do. It would simply be a gateway to allowing new people to experience the social and dress up experiences many are looking for and from there may motivate some to possibly buy and try it out on a full desktop. I did wonder at his comment if he meant discussions internal to the Lab or ones with in-world residents, though suspect the former in which case yes, same ol', same ol'. Definition of insanity, trying the same thing over and over again, expecting a different result. Remains to be seen whether the new owners will bring in any new insights or open to hearing at least and possibly pushing through ideas from areas the Lab has over the years ignored or put on the back burner. I think sometimes old users need to take a pill and realize that some new ideas are a good thing as the ones they have already had, has brought S/L to the point where it is no longer attractive to anyone not already in S/L. Chic's point about Tyche Sheperd's data of new signups being WAY down just points out a continuing pattern that can only lead to S/L's eventual demise. Only question being whether it is sooner or later.

Oz had this to say at the meeting on Wednesday: [07:55] Oz Linden: The combination of uplift and the acquisition completing literally within days of each other makes for an excellent time to start lots of discussions... but we're all (including our new owners) very excited about the possibilities. which certainly sounds good though tbh I think as residents we have all been very excited about the possibilities for years without seeing much in the way of anything coming to any fruition, as so much tends to bog down to no more than just discussions. As one person remarked in the meeting, it is mostly "business as usual" which Oz did mention he hoped to prove her wrong about but I'm not overly optimistic they will. Prediction wise I think it would be safe to say that the graphical parts of Lumiya will be broken this year but the Lab's own mobile efforts will not even have full text viewer capabilities until next.

From a couple different articles I read, it seems the first shot is good for around 80% of the protection that 2 shots would give and also that it seems it is the second shot that a greater percentage of people have some negative reactions towards. Another article pointed out that giving one shot would allow more people to get at least some protection much more quickly. Theoretically at least they would be able to vaccinate double the amount of people in the same time.

It is your opinions which does not necessarily equate to any reality except as it exists for you. Some of us read the black text and refrain from reading between the lines for what you really meant. The text combined with the myriad of scoffing on various posts though does give an indication of what development paths might be left that you'd be ok with.

Every viewer has optimizations and limitations to make it work for S/L. They are constant works in progress to stay up to date. What you and the Lab don't seem to get is that there is that mobile is taking an ever increasing share of the market for gamers. There is a number of articles out there right now pointing out how during this Covid lockdown the mobile social and gaming market has grown by leaps and bounds while LL sits on its hands on even the text viewers it has promised to put out. The fact that you limited yourself in how you used Lumiya is your deal as there were/are plenty of people who used it for a lot more then just a way to make payments. Had we had updates over the past 3 years on the better mobile hardware available today in comparison to what was normal then, it would no doubt be even closer to a full viewer. You are in a tiny minority who seems to feel S/L should move forward by going backwards in how we access the virtual world. Like it or not, the world is moving to mobile and VR. Fossils are going to get left behind. In that regard S/L doesn't have to suffer that fate and could put a lot more emphasis in at least modernizing itself in those ways even if the renderer is antiquated. Lumiya and FirestormVR have proved that in spite of all your scoffing.

Eh? Yah the FirestormVR should be the first clue that it isn't the Lab working on it. Unfortunately between a few in the lab and some forum scoffers, progress in the capabilities of the official viewer will stay stuck at around the 2009 level.

No, 1.8 billion was the total of the populations of those countries that had the treatment group while 663 million is the total population of the countries with the control group as per what it says in the page you linked: https://hcqtrial.com/ So far the egregious errors are not in the sources but in the readership.

It is much simpler however when one is not tilting at windmills. Thanks for the refresher lesson in statistics 🤪 but the thrust of the linked study was about deaths per million from countries using HCQ treatments and those who didn't. The 90 day projection was not even included in the graph I posted. The pertinent part for me was this: Many countries either adopted or declined early treatment with HCQ, effectively forming a large trial with 1.8 billion people in the treatment group and 663 million in the control group. As of November 14, 2020, an average of 138.5 per million in the treatment group have died, and 588.4 per million in the control group, relative risk 0.235. After adjustments, treatment and control deaths become 267.8 per million and 889.8 per million, relative risk 0.30. The probability of an equal or lower relative risk occurring from random group assignments is 0.030. Accounting for predicted changes in spread, we estimate a relative risk of 0.30. The treatment group has a 69.9% lower death rate. No need to discount their entire study with current death rates just because you think their projection model is incorrect.

Simply replace it with a bald base and wear your fave mesh hair. It is required to wear a system hair base otherwise you would be a cloud.

Perhaps it is simply that I am more impressed with the practical whereas you want to chew on the theory. I see graphs like this: and think there may be something to this. When I do a search for countries using it for Covid 19, i see entry after entry of sites talking about its successes in other countries: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=hydroxychloroquine+countries+using+it&atb=v245-1&ia=web You are entitled to your opinion of course and hope for your sake it doesn't need to be tested but for me, I will put my money on quickly getting some HCQ, as it may be some time before I would be eligible for a vaccine if I can even take it.

I enjoyed this excerpt as it points out the fallibility of the sciences you like to put your faith in. At the end of her book “Science: A Four Thousand Year History” (2009), Patricia Fara of Cambridge University wrote that “there can be no cast-iron guarantee that the cutting-edge science of today will not represent the discredited alchemy of tomorrow”. This is surely an understatement. If the past is any guide—and what else could be?—plenty of today’s science will be discredited in future. There is no reason to think that today’s practitioners are uniquely immune to the misconceptions, hasty generalisations, fads and hubris that marked most of their predecessors. Although the best ideas of Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, Boyle, Darwin, Einstein and others have stood the test of time and taken their place in the permanent corpus of knowledge, error remains inherent in the enterprise of science. This is because interesting theories always go beyond the data that they seek to explain, and because science is made by people. No offence intended but what I find is that in many cases there are scientists on both sides of the divide and in todays world of political armchair critics, it is the science that the relevant ideologically based media sources one puts their faith in that is taken to be the "real science". So really for most it is not the science but the faith in the right ideological that is the most relevant. As an example I'll point out how several studied cures for Covid promoted by Trump were quickly discredited by some dodgy science studies for no other reason then that it was Trump who promoted them. Left wing media blasted the cures to a degree that it is actually difficult to find anything that looked into them more deeply but there have been scientists who have continued to do so as per this site: HCQ is effective for COVID-19 when used early: meta analysis of 182 studies That is a lot of studies proving the effectiveness of something that could be saving thousands of deaths but has been tossed on the trash heap of mainstream medicine for no other reason then a hated political figure touted its effectiveness. Covid is about the politics, not the science.

Where did you get the server software? Free?

But I am not arguing a Kitely vs Secondlife cost/expense ratio. Though Kitely does have some proprietary inhouse code, they for the most part use opensource server and viewer code that that has in effect 100's of thousands if not millions of hours of research, development and coding into them which they never had to pay for, unlike Secondlife had to at some point over the years and still continues to. Another aspect to consider is that what many Opensim grids have found is that as the grid concurrency grows, the hardware requirements to support it, grows exponentially. I will also point out that Kitely's prices in terms of the Opensim grids in general, is not the cheapest. Their 1 region price at 14.95 p/m is high in comparison to the average which I believe is somewhere around 8-10 dollars per month. (Kitely is probably well worth that extra expense though for most) What this does though is validate my point that the hardware cost of servers is just a small part of what the total S/L tier is paying for and whether it is LL owned server farm or cloud based AWS, the difference in the end will be negligible in terms of individual sim instances though the total saving maybe worth it overall. I would suspect that the cloud based move is worth it more in terms of portability, convenience and a small reduction of the Labs workforce.