I assume so, I have seen a few people make SQLite run in the browser against IndexedDB, but I haven't personally seen anyone build one from scratch for it.
We've been using bun for a while now. We love the speed, but we love the integration even more. No need to use node, npm, nodemon, tsx, esbuild and jest.
They can add 50,000 locations, it won't matter unless the requests actually get routed to the closest location.
The article basically says "hey, we have no control where it is routed to". I have a CF location which is about 20 miles away and I always get routed to a location that is 280 miles away and this article and the response in CF community forum basically says "Nothing to do with us".
I technically get this, but then they shouldn't advertise it in such misleading ways.
Here is the fundamental flaw with the parent analogy:
Both the government and the citizens are adults. Don't treat me like a child. Government is not supposed to keep us safe from ourselves but protect our god given freedoms.
In the US the government is of the people, by the people, for the people.
The other argument that people in government are smarter is laughable, at best.
Government is a necessary evil, but it needs to be limited.
Everything is a necessary evil, if you want to see it that way.
> Government is not supposed to keep us safe from ourselves but protect our god given freedoms.
A lot of the job of the state is to keep us safe from other individuals and other states. History proved that one of the best way to do that is to respect individual freedom in a very strong way.
Personally I am not convinced that personal freedom is an end to itself, I see it as the only stable principle that is able to fuel a civil and fair society. More freedom is good only insofar as it produces healthier societies.
I think we have quite different world views on this.
Since this is being repeated multiple times, quoting benmaraschino:
One of these "studies" is a 2-page Google Doc with no real data. Another is the discredited Raoult study, which is under investigation by the journal [1]. Another study cited is also by Raoult's team. The Brazil study (ref. 29) doesn't seem to have passed peer review (yet?) and has severe methodological flaws. Like the Raoult studies, the Brazil study was not randomized, but makes no attempt to control for confounding by indication or self-selection, such as with propensity score matching or similar methods commonly used in observational studies. The last study cited isn't a study, but an article from a local news station.
Actually we can, but timing and combination matters.
It should be taken early (either as preventative or early onset of symptoms) and with zinc. If so, then there is proof of success, see these five studies confirming its effectiveness in outpatients.
Since this is being repeated multiple times, quoting benmaraschino:
One of these "studies" is a 2-page Google Doc with no real data. Another is the discredited Raoult study, which is under investigation by the journal [1]. Another study cited is also by Raoult's team. The Brazil study (ref. 29) doesn't seem to have passed peer review (yet?) and has severe methodological flaws. Like the Raoult studies, the Brazil study was not randomized, but makes no attempt to control for confounding by indication or self-selection, such as with propensity score matching or similar methods commonly used in observational studies. The last study cited isn't a study, but an article from a local news station.
Since this is being repeated multiple times, quoting benmaraschino:
One of these "studies" is a 2-page Google Doc with no real data. Another is the discredited Raoult study, which is under investigation by the journal [1]. Another study cited is also by Raoult's team. The Brazil study (ref. 29) doesn't seem to have passed peer review (yet?) and has severe methodological flaws. Like the Raoult studies, the Brazil study was not randomized, but makes no attempt to control for confounding by indication or self-selection, such as with propensity score matching or similar methods commonly used in observational studies. The last study cited isn't a study, but an article from a local news station.
Since this is being repeated multiple times, quoting benmaraschino:
One of these "studies" is a 2-page Google Doc with no real data. Another is the discredited Raoult study, which is under investigation by the journal [1]. Another study cited is also by Raoult's team. The Brazil study (ref. 29) doesn't seem to have passed peer review (yet?) and has severe methodological flaws. Like the Raoult studies, the Brazil study was not randomized, but makes no attempt to control for confounding by indication or self-selection, such as with propensity score matching or similar methods commonly used in observational studies. The last study cited isn't a study, but an article from a local news station.
I personally do not like drugs, but as far drugs goes Hydroxychloroquine is quite safe.
Hydroxychloroquine has been used since 1958 by millions of people. It is relatively safely (as much as any drug is safe) used for Malaria, Lupus and Arthritis. Some Lupus users have used it for decades.
The CDC on their web site state it is safe for young, old and pregnant.
First that page shows a maximum daily dosage of 400mg/7 (weekly dosage) in adults. What's being used in covid patients is 800mg/day for the first day [1].
Can you point to any studies that shows the safety of hydroxycholorquine in people with respiratory distress or infection?
Can you show any studies that hyrdoxychlorquine is safe when the blood oxygen level drops below certain level often seen in covid patients?
Can I point you to here which shows all the potentially dangerous side effects of hydroxychloroquine?
> Hydroxychloroquine prolongs the QT interval. Use hydroxychloroquine with caution in patients with conditions that may increase the risk of QT prolongation including congenital long QT syndrome, bradycardia, AV block, heart failure, stress-related cardiomyopathy, myocardial infarction, stroke, hypomagnesemia, hypokalemia, hypocalcemia, or in patients receiving medications known to prolong the QT interval or cause electrolyte imbalances. Females, geriatric patients, patients with sleep deprivation, pheochromocytoma, sickle cell disease, hypothyroidism, hyperparathyroidism, hypothermia, systemic inflammation (e.g., human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection, fever, and some autoimmune diseases including rheumatoid arthritis, systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), and celiac disease) and patients undergoing apheresis procedures (e.g., plasmapheresis [plasma exchange], cytapheresis) may also be at increased risk for QT prolongation.
It's safe for people with those conditions, we don't know if it's safe for people in respiratory distress.
Take thalidomide for example. Great drug for treating nausea, but not great when that person is also pregnant. By not studying it in this group, it resulted in many people born with birth defects.
Since this is being repeated multiple times, quoting benmaraschino:
One of these "studies" is a 2-page Google Doc with no real data. Another is the discredited Raoult study, which is under investigation by the journal [1]. Another study cited is also by Raoult's team. The Brazil study (ref. 29) doesn't seem to have passed peer review (yet?) and has severe methodological flaws. Like the Raoult studies, the Brazil study was not randomized, but makes no attempt to control for confounding by indication or self-selection, such as with propensity score matching or similar methods commonly used in observational studies. The last study cited isn't a study, but an article from a local news station.
