New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by NihilOC

Well I meant the method can be tweaked to target different bacteria, not that a single version would target all of them I wouldn't really say antibiotic resistance is a threat coming many, many years in the future. There are already strains resistant to all of the antibiotics available for use in the US.It's worth noting the patient in the above case was treated in India, then the drug resistant strain was identified when she fell ill in the US. I suspect there are...
The thing is though something like this is, in some respects, an all-cure elixir.The goal is not to develop new treatments for E. Coli, tuberculosis, cholera or their ilk but to develop an alternative to antibiotics which can be used against any bacteria.Imagine all of them gaining immunity, because currently this is where we are headed.If there aren't alternatives in place by the time this happens it wouldn't be a pendemic, it would be multiple pandemics of diseases that...
Well I mean level 4 is basically for level 3 agents that are untreatable, it would make sense that that currently contains viruses as relatively few bacteria are resistant to treatment.But how many bacteria are going to be re-prioritised once they gain antibiotic resistance?I mean you say above tuberculosis is classed as a level 3 agent, that's because it's difficult to treat with antibiotics. Now imagine a strain that's immune to them.Using biosafety classification as a...
Well I mean tuberculosis is a bacterial infection, as are gonorrhea, syphilis, and chlamydia.I think the main thing is that we don't hear about bacterial infections as much these days, or treat them as seriously, because they're treatable with antibiotics.
That might work for infections of the digestive tract, but what about blood infections? Or tuberculosis? STDs?We need alternatives to antibiotics, this seems fairly promising. I'd be interested in seeing whether it's possible to evolve an effective defence against this.
In which case, even assuming that they did this, the title of this clickbait article would still be incorrect.
They don't "sell" it, they provide targeted advertising.They provide access to aggregate anonymised data, which is a far throw from telling people your search history.You do realise this is a site designed to function similarly to LinkedIn, or applicant tracking software like Greenhouse or Lever?It is not a site for a random employer to go to Google for data on an applicant, that means it doesn't just need employers it needs applicants.Google and MS, as stated previously,...
No, I don't think I do.It seemed you were suggesting Google would allow employers to view prospective employees personal data in return for a fee, but you now seem to be suggesting you meant something else?How, exactly?A job seeking platform requires, by definition, applicants. No one is going to apply via a site where employers can see their search history.Not to mention the sheer amount of bad PR it would generate, look at all the fuss generated just by some terrible...
Giving employers access to search history makes absolutely no sense, it would also require a complete rewrite of their terms of service.Google do not sell data, they keep it.They share data with third parties only if you ask them to, if a valid warrant orders them to, if they are using a third party to process the data or if you have a G Suite administrator managing your account.
This is the origin of the article:Google is working on a tool for managing job applicantsThen The Sun, a terrible tabloid newspaper, decided to run with the headline "Google creates jobsite Google Hire, but does that mean employers will be able to snoop on your grubby digital history?".Posed as a question because they know it has no basis, but designed to generate clicks. It's the definition of clickbait, so naturally half of this website jump on it without reading the...
New Posts  All Forums: