Slavery. For instance the technology for windmills already existed at the time, it just wasn't that big of a deal in world with an abundance of slaves. Fast forward to the Middle Ages and you find it everywhere.
Interesting, I’m starting to think undocumented thresholds are quite common in GCP.
I experienced something similar with Clod Run: inexplicable scaling events based on CPU utilization and concurrent requests (the two metrics that regulate scaling according to their docs).
After a lot of back and forth with their (premium) support it turns out there are additional criteria, smthg related to request duration, but of course nobody was able to explain in details.
The 65k figure is what ancient historians reported, in reality it’s almost certainly order of magnitudes lower. Exaggerated figures are usually the case with ancient reports (especially about battles).
You can ship your local docker context to a remote host and build/run your containers there. All the docker commands you typically run locally you can run on the remote host.
Not only they were cousins, in their private correspondence right before the outbreak of WWI they were addressing each other as Willy and Nicky[0].
By the way they fought against each other.
I think you're too quick at making assumptions which are not correct unfortunately. Let's recap:
> there's no selective pressure for it to become less lethal.
> If people take measures to prevent spread of a disease that’s literally selective pressure.
How trying to slow down its spread can "force" it to become less lethal?
The only possible answer is that lower lethality gives it more time to spread around right?
It turns out Covid has a long incubation period, in fact plenty to use the host to infect other people.
Tl;dr: Given the length of the incubation period a less lethal virus would not gain much in terms of its ability to spread. That's the thesis I'm hearing.
Agreed, macro predictions are very hard. Much easier to make predictions on individual assets (companies, commodities etc.) and hold long term.
Also, precisely because macro is hard, these analyses often feel superficial.
Inflation, especially if exogenous, can negatively impact the economy but at the same time cash-alternative assets become more attractive. What's the ultimate effect there?
And what about historically low interest rates? Don’t they warrant a shift in investment preferences towards stocks?
Wether a macro prediction turns out to be right or wrong it’s rare to read a deeper argument than “things are too high must go down”.
> The people have dramatically altered their behavior on a global scale (on average anyways) because of COVID’s lethality. There is absolutely selective pressure in that dimension.
This reads to me: "Covid is certainly more lethal than the average flu, therefore is undoubtedly getting less lethal" (effect of selective pressure). It doesn't make much sense.
> there wouldn’t be anywhere near the amount of research into medical intervention
Right, how's that has to do with whether there's selective pressure or not?
It almost feels like you are attributing a different meaning to "selective pressure", but cannot understand which one.
Well if the two events (improved transimissibility and improved lethality) are not independent as I assumed then it's certainly bad news.
I also heard the opposite thesis btw, higher transimissibility might sacrifice something in terms of lethality. Like you can't really add much as I'm not an expert.
True, there's no selective pressure for it to become less lethal.
But I wonder: isn't a random mutation unlikely to improve on any of its profiles (transmissibility or lethality)? If so a more transmissible virus is unlikely to also be more lethal.
What if (not sure) a random mutation actually tends to do slightly worse? Then more transmissible viruses tend to be less lethal over time.
Sure we still get more lethal mutations from time to time, but the more transmissible ones are the ones which win out.
I think people should not think that much in terms of supply-demand for speculative phenomena. At least not in a macroeconomic sense.
The value of a coin is determined by the expectation of selling it in the future at a higher price, nothing else.
These expectations are affected by the supply level only via auction dynamics: lots of newly mined coins in a short timeframe tend to result in big sell orders and downward pressure on the price.
That's an effective but also very limited way to impact the price.
For instance the increase in supply of a non-speculative asset reduces its marginal utility: the more oil available the less useful it becomes.
But there's no theoretical limit to the price of a coin and therefore no limit to the return one can expect!
As it's all about auction dynamics, a highly inflationary speculative asset with well-timed and strategic increase in supply could very well defy any macro supply-demand logic.