I reverse engineered what I could, and it's supposed to be all in row 30, column 4 to 11 (8 squares). You may add 2 more squares on the left or right side (it's just checking it's no more than 10 squares).
I'm glad that the programmer put some tolerance to it, but it was impossible for me to know whether he did or not at the time, and that was the end of fun for me :)
I recently wrote some kubernetes charts for running Zulip for my new (smol) org, but I've ran Zulip for the last 3 years as CTO for a mid-sized AAA video game development company...
I really would recommend it over Mattermost (which was in use at another development company I was briefly a part of)
In general, hard climate change denial as an ideology is only _really_ a thing in states that produce a lot of oil (or, specifically in the case of Australia, coal), and not all of them (notably it never caught on to any great degree in Norway). It's really very much motivated reasoning, and even Trump-esque movements outside the US generally don't push it too hard.
Not a well written article in other ways too. What's the booster interval? What's the expected market coverage? How expensive is it, especially in poor countries where it's needed most? Are there challenges in transportation or storage that will limit its adoption? How does its efficacy as a preventative compare to its efficacy as a treatment (the reason it was approved in 2022)? Lots was left unsaid by this article.
You'll note also, the sole source for the article is Gilead (mentioned at the end), the drug manufacturer.
These are better covered by Gilead’s actual press releases, of which this is a very poor summary.
For pricing, Gilead will likely carry over its policy for Truvada, by charging fairly high rates to western countries (with vouchers available) to subsidize its operations in Africa, where it will be provided cheaply or freely.
(Disclosure: I’m an investor. I truly believe that if any company can be morally good, Gilead qualifies.)
> I truly believe that if any company can be morally good, Gilead qualifies.
The primary reason Gilead exists in my memory is the headline years back about their exorbitantly high prices for a life saving hepatitis C drug and the resulting questions this was raising in congress ($84K for a 12 week supply) [0].
While it may be admirable that they are providing these drugs freely to countries in need, I’d be more hesitant to accept at face value the claim that US prices in particular are somehow reasonable on that basis. I also question the framing that those high prices are necessarily high. I’m less familiar with how they’ve priced things in recent years.
They created a way to live with AIDS. They were the first. They did it in the 90s, where even working on this had significant stigma still. Friends are alive because of them.
In 2024, lenacapavir was named the "2024 Breakthrough of the Year", citing its "astonishing 100% efficacy" in one large efficacy trial in women to prevent HIV and "99.9% efficacy in gender diverse people who have sex with men,"
Maybe the other routes simply weren't tested for. Sex is how most people get HIV, so it makes sense to start from here. The second most common is by sharing needles, usually by drug addicts, and I can't think of an ethical way of doing a trial in such conditions. The rest is mother-child transmission, which is irrelevant as the drug is not intended for fetuses, and the odd accident which is probably too uncommon to make meaningful statistics.
Wouldn't sexually active people who have sex with men be the primary market? It makes sense this would be the focus of the drug's development.
They may also have issues trying to conduct robust clinical trials with IV drug abusers. If a subject entered rehab or were incarcerated for a period of the trial, would that invalidate their data? I don't know enough about the subject but it intuitively feels like it could present a real challenge.
Prep has been studied for IV drug users. It works, enough that it is recommended, but is much less effective. IV drug use is a massively more efficient transmission route than any type of sexual contact.
Asking here instead of searching, for conversational purposes:
In the 90s, some STD training I took said it was highly unlikely for otherwise healthy bio women to contract HIV from a man (ie compared to sex trafficked women in poor health), with the claim that vaginal sex is less susceptible to micro tearing that allows easy transmission than anal sex is.
I didn’t really question this at the time because it seemed plausible and I believed the people who were telling us this. (Note: this was in a medical context, not someone trying to scare us.) Is there any credibility to that idea now that we have more data, and hopefully leased biased science than we had in the 80s?
It's true that it's less likely, but calling it "unlikely" is grossly irresponsible. Yes, the chance is only 1-2%, but that's per vaginal sexual encounter. (And it's also "only" 20% for anal.)
That doesn't match what the top study says: 1.4% for anal and 0.08% for vaginal.
> The analysis, based on the results of four studies, estimated the risk through receptive anal sex (receiving the penis into the anus, also known as bottoming) to be 1.4%.
> It is estimated the risk of HIV transmission through receptive vaginal sex (receiving the penis in the vagina) to be 0.08% (equivalent to 1 transmission per 1,250 exposures).
In the fog of the day, you can understand why 1 transmission per 1,250 occurrences qualified as unlikely. Female prostitutes were self-reporting that they didn't use condoms and weren't showing symptoms. Meanwhile the disease decimated the gay male population which is why it was called GRID ("Gay-Related Immune Deficiency"). It was a complicated and horrible time and the data really wasn't there.
Yeah, agreed. That was the takeaway 3 decades ago, and I only bring it up no out of curiosity of how erroneous that turned out to be. I’d hope no one would describe it that way today.
There's a syntax error in line 10 (t0 instead of to).
Also, what's the source for this program? I tried it on VICE and failed miserably. Maybe something (else) was copied wrong? Or is it supposed to fail on emulators?
It's the third row where other buildings show up.
https://i.redd.it/rwudh4r46eqf1.png