Wow... that took me several, uh, seconds to find.

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2516491

There's your hard data.

Thanks. 10 our of 13 of the researchers work for Moderna or another pharma company. That "study" might as well be a marketing brochure.

Not everyone is duplicitous, and it’s not surprising that the experts on a technology work at a company that creates the technology. I assume you’d think the study was valid if the Moderna staff were testing a Pfizer vaccine?

He does have a point though, would you trust a study on how there is no long term side effects from smoking published by scientists that works for a tobacco company?

I agree that not everyone is duplicitous, but how would you know which one is and which one isn’t?

After the lies and misinformation we now know we were fed during the COVID era, you would have to be insane to blindly trust this group again, especially the hacker news astroturf squad that's downvoting my comments. Hard data studies only from independent researchers, preferably double blind placebo controlled, and sterilizing vaccines only, not these leaky "get your booster this week before it mutates again" treatments.

I agree with you. It seems like the pharmaceutical corporations are trying to convert vaccines into a recurring revenue model with booster shots. I wouldn't be surprised in the future if they introduce a subscription model for vaccines.

I guarantee that's in a powerpoint presentation somewhere at Pfizer.

What do you mean by "immunizing vaccines"?

In the first sentence, you say that flu vaccines are not and in the second you admit they are.

Maybe you meant that their coverage is not comprehensive. If so, that's what you should say.

mRNA flu vaccines have substantial potential advantages in terms of the ability to target a wider spectrum of variants and faster time to manufacture.

> faster time to manufacture.

In other words: improved responsiveness when loading a flu season.

Pushing those vaccines saved hundreds of thousands of lives.

This is usually modulated by whether the fib is about something "material".

In fact, he probably would have had the same decision with or without the claim which is the essence of "not material".

My own personal take is that the lying is crucial, however.

Totally agree. I’m an outsider—from finance, where I thought the bar was already low. I’m asking if this a material fib or commonplace in medicine.

A bad abstraction would have caused many updates in many places because the API would never quite stabilize due to having been a force-fit from the start.

A uses the abstraction, but finds the API doesn't work. Fixes that.

That causes B to have to make a tracking change which induces a bug. B realizes that the API isn't quite right. Fixes it.

That causes A and C to make tracking changes. These induce more bugs. C fixes the abstraction to avoid these cases.

This breaks A and B so they decline to update.

And so on. This is what a bad abstraction looks like. API "fixes" bouncing around the code as they reflect off of the bad abstraction.

I, on the other hand, have had to burn through countless cycles of security alerts because I used a library for JSON parsing that had all kinds of other features that I didn't need or want.

The security bugs were all in features I never wanted.

A bit of simple duplication would have been golden.

Your duplication of the library would have the same bugs, you just wouldn't get alerts

That may be true, but it is likely that the contract limits you to arbitration, forbids class action and limits the penalty dramatically.

Add in the fact that they claim 900 million weekly uniques. Pretending the growth and cost rates compound as described in the article, they will need to generate about 100x current revenue to growth out of their current hole. That sort of implies that they will have 10x the entire world's population as weekly uniques at that time.

That seems unlikely.

It's not like their 10x revenue growth year-to-year was based on expanding their customer base 10x though. The vast majority of weekly users are not paying, so they are actually a cost right now, but could be converted into paying users or audience for ads in the future.

That's a fair point.

My own experience with converting unpaid customers is that it is really hard.

They could have 2x customers spend 50x as much money too.

I think it's more about contrasting it with world economy as a whole for a reality check.

Cutting out the middlemen. Getting rid of the pesky chlorophyl syndicate.

and I cry again when I see mountains of fly ash from coal burning.