https://t.co/pC8nynqjNv
Moderna's mRNA-1273 & Pfizer's BNT162b2 consist of mRNA 3821 nucleotides long encoding *all* 1273 amino acids of the Spike including a 2 Proline-stabilized RBD. This is a plain English Description of the code:
https://t.co/w7koHyMJjL
https://t.co/pC8nynqjNv
https://t.co/SrTUKYleGn
The mRNA sequences used for Moderna mRNA-1273 & Pfizer BNT162b2 mRNA vaccines for COVID-19 (Direct link in Word Format). WHO International Nonproprietary Name Program # 11889 "Messenger RNA encoding the full-length SARS-CoV-2 spike glycoprotein"https://t.co/zTb7B0Apic pic.twitter.com/8tZxAZWI5S
— Roland Baker (@RolandBakerIII) December 24, 2020
https://t.co/4hSPjnwd6m
Moderna's mRNA-1273 & Pfizer's BNT162b2 consist of mRNA 3821 nucleotides long encoding *all* 1273 amino acids of the Spike including a 2 Proline-stabilized RBD and this includes the NTD (blue in monomer, dark gray in trimer attached to antibodies). AA 64, 66, 187, 213, 214 red. pic.twitter.com/4MX1ByAsrR
— Roland Baker (@RolandBakerIII) December 19, 2020
https://t.co/6WwNBrkIU6
News: NIH-Moderna investigational COVID-19 vaccine shows promise in mouse studies https://t.co/7JYuUyZT45
— NIH (@NIH) August 5, 2020
More from For later read
This response to my tweet is a common objection to targeted advertising.
@KevinCoates correct me if I'm wrong, but basic point seems to be that banning targeted ads will lower platform profits, but will mostly be beneficial for consumers.
Some counterpoints 👇
1) This assumes that consumers prefer contextual ads to targeted ones.
This does not seem self-evident to me
Research also finds that firms choose between ad. targeting vs. obtrusiveness 👇
If true, the right question is not whether consumers prefer contextual ads to targeted ones. But whether they prefer *more* contextual ads vs *fewer* targeted
2) True, many inframarginal platforms might simply shift to contextual ads.
But some might already be almost indifferent between direct & indirect monetization.
Hard to imagine that *none* of them will respond to reduced ad revenue with actual fees.
3) Policy debate seems to be moving from:
"Consumers are insufficiently informed to decide how they share their data."
To
"No one in their right mind would agree to highly targeted ads (e.g., those that mix data from multiple sources)."
IMO the latter statement is incorrect.
@KevinCoates correct me if I'm wrong, but basic point seems to be that banning targeted ads will lower platform profits, but will mostly be beneficial for consumers.
Some counterpoints 👇
That targeted ads allow for "free" products for consumers is a common talking point and we're going to see more of it in the coming months.: https://t.co/Xty3My3f0u (1/14)
— Kevin Coates (@KevinCoates) February 16, 2021
1) This assumes that consumers prefer contextual ads to targeted ones.
This does not seem self-evident to me
Great post by @Sherman1890 got me thinking about the future of targeted ads.
— Dirk Auer (@AuerDirk) February 12, 2021
More and more tools (privacy labels, ad blockers, GDPR) enable consumers to opt-out from targeted ads - can limit the data platforms receive or block ads altogether.
The end of targeted ads? \U0001f9f5\U0001f447 https://t.co/MA6A3BrUWq
Research also finds that firms choose between ad. targeting vs. obtrusiveness 👇
If true, the right question is not whether consumers prefer contextual ads to targeted ones. But whether they prefer *more* contextual ads vs *fewer* targeted
2) True, many inframarginal platforms might simply shift to contextual ads.
But some might already be almost indifferent between direct & indirect monetization.
Hard to imagine that *none* of them will respond to reduced ad revenue with actual fees.
3) Policy debate seems to be moving from:
"Consumers are insufficiently informed to decide how they share their data."
To
"No one in their right mind would agree to highly targeted ads (e.g., those that mix data from multiple sources)."
IMO the latter statement is incorrect.
@snip96581187 @Daoyu15 @lab_leak @walkaboutrick @ydeigin @Ayjchan @franciscodeasis @TheSeeker268 @angie_rasmussen Clearly, because as I have been saying for 8 months now, DTRA and DARPA have been using Ecohealth and UC Davis to collect novel pathogens for gain of function work back in the USA. I have documented this in many threads which I will post here just to annoy everyone.
@Daoyu15 @lab_leak @walkaboutrick @ydeigin @Ayjchan @franciscodeasis @TheSeeker268 @angie_rasmussen
@Daoyu15 @lab_leak @walkaboutrick @ydeigin @Ayjchan @franciscodeasis @TheSeeker268 @angie_rasmussen
@Daoyu15 @lab_leak @walkaboutrick @ydeigin @Ayjchan @franciscodeasis @TheSeeker268 @angie_rasmussen
@Daoyu15 @lab_leak @walkaboutrick @ydeigin @Ayjchan @franciscodeasis @TheSeeker268 @angie_rasmussen
@Daoyu15 @lab_leak @walkaboutrick @ydeigin @Ayjchan @franciscodeasis @TheSeeker268 @angie_rasmussen
28. Before moving on to DARPA, let's look at DTRA:
— Billy Bostickson \U0001f3f4\U0001f441&\U0001f441 \U0001f193 (@BillyBostickson) July 31, 2020
A must read!
It is astonishing the number of pies they had their dirty little fingers poking into:
Note John Epstein and Kevin Olival from EcoHealth Alliance are key figures in DTRA:https://t.co/O4QwVWrm7m pic.twitter.com/cnNGZ7AApj
@Daoyu15 @lab_leak @walkaboutrick @ydeigin @Ayjchan @franciscodeasis @TheSeeker268 @angie_rasmussen
24. DTRA Network for Collection of Viruses
— Billy Bostickson \U0001f3f4\U0001f441&\U0001f441 \U0001f193 (@BillyBostickson) January 9, 2021
7. DTRA - Metabiota - One Health - Ecohealth
Bat Research Networks and Viral Surveillance: Gaps and Opportunities in Western Asia pic.twitter.com/SOqSSXF3pa
@Daoyu15 @lab_leak @walkaboutrick @ydeigin @Ayjchan @franciscodeasis @TheSeeker268 @angie_rasmussen
That is the key question
— Billy Bostickson \U0001f3f4\U0001f441&\U0001f441 \U0001f193 (@BillyBostickson) January 5, 2021
1. DARPA/DTRA use NGOs like Ecohealth or Metabiota to collect new pathogens
2. They are sent to US labs (Mailman, Rocky Mountain, Atlanta CDC, UNC, USAMRIID) for GOF work by Lipkin, Nichols, Rasmussen, Baric, Dension, Munster, etchttps://t.co/wqhHK7uZO6
@Daoyu15 @lab_leak @walkaboutrick @ydeigin @Ayjchan @franciscodeasis @TheSeeker268 @angie_rasmussen
1. I wonder why Dr. Angela Rasmussen is so so upset & full of almost palpable venom about a Hypothesis and a "What if" question by @nicholsonbaker8 in the @NYMag https://t.co/a6lxtJLpKR
— Billy Bostickson \U0001f3f4\U0001f441&\U0001f441 \U0001f193 (@BillyBostickson) January 5, 2021
Did I hear someone say "DARPA"?
Did I hear someone say "DTRA"?https://t.co/i27mpxJDw2 pic.twitter.com/x4X3QPnTMS
You May Also Like
I’m torn on how to approach the idea of luck. I’m the first to admit that I am one of the luckiest people on the planet. To be born into a prosperous American family in 1960 with smart parents is to start life on third base. The odds against my very existence are astronomical.
I’ve always felt that the luckiest people I know had a talent for recognizing circumstances, not of their own making, that were conducive to a favorable outcome and their ability to quickly take advantage of them.
In other words, dumb luck was just that, it required no awareness on the person’s part, whereas “smart” luck involved awareness followed by action before the circumstances changed.
So, was I “lucky” to be born when I was—nothing I had any control over—and that I came of age just as huge databases and computers were advancing to the point where I could use those tools to write “What Works on Wall Street?” Absolutely.
Was I lucky to start my stock market investments near the peak of interest rates which allowed me to spend the majority of my adult life in a falling rate environment? Yup.
Ironies of Luck https://t.co/5BPWGbAxFi
— Morgan Housel (@morganhousel) March 14, 2018
"Luck is the flip side of risk. They are mirrored cousins, driven by the same thing: You are one person in a 7 billion player game, and the accidental impact of other people\u2019s actions can be more consequential than your own."
I’ve always felt that the luckiest people I know had a talent for recognizing circumstances, not of their own making, that were conducive to a favorable outcome and their ability to quickly take advantage of them.
In other words, dumb luck was just that, it required no awareness on the person’s part, whereas “smart” luck involved awareness followed by action before the circumstances changed.
So, was I “lucky” to be born when I was—nothing I had any control over—and that I came of age just as huge databases and computers were advancing to the point where I could use those tools to write “What Works on Wall Street?” Absolutely.
Was I lucky to start my stock market investments near the peak of interest rates which allowed me to spend the majority of my adult life in a falling rate environment? Yup.
