Looking forward to it!!!
steve2152
Karma: 1,271
Yes it’s a good idea, and it’s already being done :-)
COVID transmission by talking (& singing)
Thanks! Yes, I think we’re mostly on the same page, except my feeling that avoiding inhaled droplets is probably more important than avoiding touching your face. I still think that the public-health messaging I’ve seen is somewhat misdirected, and that all the celebrities and informational signs that say “wash your hands” or “don’t shake hands” should instead more often say “don’t have face-to-face conversations” and “if you talk to someone, you’re spitting on them” and “cover your cough”. The 2 meter rule is good, but I think it hasn’t been communicated why that’s important, if no one is coughing. Likewise, we all know that you should especially wash your hands after touching a contaminated surface. But conventional wisdom is that a contaminated surface is one that a sick person has touched. Do people realize that a contaminated surface is also one that a sick person has talked near? I, for one, did not connect those dots that until just now.
FYI, that first article you linked was later retracted without explanation.
Talking emits droplets and aerosols just like coughing does. In fact, I’m increasingly thinking that face-to-face conversations (especially without facemasks) are a major cause of asymptomatic transmissions. According to that theory, an indoor choir practice, with everyone singing loudly for extended periods, has to be one of the worst imaginable transmission risks. If the same type of super-spreader event happened in, say, a movie theater, I would be much more confused about it.
Western-style lockdowns may be slightly effective for a week or two, then very effective thereafter, due to the disease running through all members of an infected household. Do we yet have data on this possibility?
I think the more important hypothesis is:
If something is just barely possible today with massive compute, maybe it will be possible with much much less compute very soon (e.g. <1 year).
I don’t think it really matters for the argument whether it’s a “small team” that improves the compute-efficiency, or the original team, or a different big team, or whatever. Just that it happens.
Anyway, is the hypothesis true? I would say, it’s very likely if we’re talking about a pioneering new algorithm, because with pioneering new algorithms, we don’t yet have best practices for parallelization, GPU-acceleration, clever shortcuts, etc. etc. On the other hand, if a known, widely-used algorithm is just barely able to do something on the world’s biggest GPU cluster, then it might take longer before it becomes really easy and cheap for anyone to do that thing. Like, maybe it will take a couple years, instead of <1 year :-P
You might try this article and the many references therein. Sorry I don’t have time for a better answer at the moment :-)
I’m still trying to understand how COVID-19 actually spreads. (Related to my recent question on touching-vs-breathing.) Based largely on this article, my current very-low-confidence belief (in decreasing order of importance):
Top transmission risk: Being near (2 meters) someone coughing … or talking! Talking emits droplets / aerosols too. Is that the key to the pre-symptomatic transmission we know is happening? Hmm.
Second transmission risk: Air in or around public restrooms. Apparently a SARS carrier with diarrhea was a super-spreader, infecting people 200 meters away!! That same link also discusses evidence that COVID-19 virus is found around bathrooms.
Last transmission risk: Touching contaminated surfaces then my face. While I am ranking this at the bottom, it could still be important, and I continue to take the same gung-ho precautions as when I formerly thought this was the primary thing to be thinking about.
Again, very low confidence in all this. Thoughts?
Related: This NYTimes article discusses the interaction of HVAC and virus spread.
I’m very happy to hear that! Here in Massachusetts, we are doing many of the same things. It’s just that that list of things somehow never coalesced into a message in my mind: “Don’t breathe air that has been recently exhaled by someone else!” as a general principle for guiding my decisions and actions. I have heard “Wash your hands” 5000 times from officials, bosses, celebrities, etc., but I have never once heard that.
Ooh, what did you read? Can you suggest any links?
I’m still pondering the implications of transmission being mainly about air, not touching. What interventions does that suggest? Besides the obvious things (opening windows, HVAC filters etc, masks & goggles), one thing I thought of is … perfume!
We could all encourage everyone to wear perfume / cologne when they leave their home, and if anyone can smell anyone else, then they know you’re not sufficiently well physically-distanced (too close or not enough air circulation).
Assuming this would work, I’m not sure how to get it to take off. Maybe an unusually considerate boss of an could tell their employees to all wear perfume (if they have any), to help ensure that everyone is keeping safe distance from each other, and to identify HVAC gaps? Or I could wear perfume and a hat / T-shirt that says “if you can smell my perfume, you’re too close!” I dunno, just brainstorming :-P
I like the discussion in Food Safety and Coronavirus: A Comprehensive Guide. Note that the author has a conflict of interest, but I don’t think he let it affect the article.
[Question] COVID-19 transmission: Are we overemphasizing touching rather than breathing?
It’s also important not to think of infection as binary, all-or-nothing: minimizing your cohabitants’ inoculum may reduce the likelihood they get a severe case (I don’t really know, I would just suggest that it’s a possibility worth checking.)
this is called phonological loop
Thank you for clearing up my confusion! :-)
when you use RNN to explain something...
To be clear, I am using the term “recurrent” as a kinda generic term meaning “having a connectivity graph in which there are cycles”. That’s what I think is ubiquitous in the neocortex. I absolutely do not think that “the kind of RNN that ML practitioners frequently use today” is similar to how the neocortex works. Indeed, I think very few ML practitioners are using algorithms that are fundamentally similar to brain algorithms. (I think Dileep George is one of the exceptions.)
Fodorian modules are, by definition, barely compatible with CCA
...unless the Fodorian modules are each running the same algorithm on different input data, right?
My understanding is that if you try to defend yourself with a gun, it’s much likelier that, at the end of the day, you’ll wind up dead. I would guess that a much better option is to find a really good hiding place for the things you don’t want stolen, and have enough non-hidden stuff to make the criminal feel like they robbed you successfully. (And be a good liar.) Also get a security camera … and/or a prominent sign that says you have a security camera. :-P The only scenario I can think where a gun might be worth having is a complete breakdown of civil order, with people literally starving of hunger etc. If you think that’s sufficiently probable as to be worth preparing for, you can get a gun, and just absolutely don’t use it unless that scenario actually happens.
Re 1: The existence of perishable, refrigerated, and frozen food, which can only be hoarded to a very limited extent, puts a ceiling on how bad a run on food can get, right?