Perhaps because the Chinese company "Fosun Pharmaceutical", as the other sponsor[1] of this vaccine, is the one which has the right to distribute it in China?
Pfizer will start another smaller trial in China to generate local safety data, which will be combined with its global data as it seeks regulatory approval in china. [1]
China has its' own regulatory requirements which typically (I don't know in this case if China is asking for it) requires a specific trial in an Asian population in order to get approval.
I'm assuming that China is probably not waiving that requirement since they have their own vaccines.
The requirement of forming joint ventures has been dropped since 2014. The 'forced tech transfer' rhetoric has been out of date since the first day of the trade war.
Would you mind linking to the 21 Jump Street scene? I'm very curious. As an American nerd in my late 30s, I definitely recall being relentlessly teased as a kid. I don't have kids of my own now and so I don't really know how and if things have changed, but if true this would be a very positive development!
Not sure I can link it but I can definitely describe it. To be clear I'm referring to the 2012 film not the original show. The scene though is sortof referencing the original series because if memory serves it was sortof how they would have done "high school undercover" in the 80s.
Basically the adult cops undercover as high school students try to make a first day impression and they sortof trash academics and try to intimidate kids interested in studying etc. So they try to be stereotypical 80s/90s popular kids. It spectacularly backfires and they have to change their approach. It's actually a surprisingly insightful scene in the context of this discussion.
All out kids are relentless teased by the popular ones. You have observer bias to what you were teased about, but if you look you will see many out groups teased about different things. You will often find kids in the in group not teased despite having the same characteristics.
This strikes me as the quintessential problem with autocracies. Sometimes one gets extremely efficient governments in the short term, when the autocrat is competent and not entirely corrupt, but in the long run whatever short term gains were had are squandered by corruption and greed. Democracy is inefficient in the short term but efficient in the long run.
From what I can tell, the main difference between Wolfram and Matlab/Julia (other than syntax) is a database of various facts. Is that a fair assessment?
Is there a way to access the database without the language?
It's based on rewriting symbolic terms (similar to Lisp's s-expressions) using rules.
It then originally has a large library of facts and rules for a large amount of mathematical domains. This has been expanded over time into lots of knowledge about the world (physics, biology, astronomy, ...).
Programming is often done with multimedia-rich notebooks.
They played a newer version of SF (newest version at the time the paper was written), let SF use opening book, stronger CPU for SF, non-fixed time control for SF.
"E-scooters aren't a reliable way to get anywhere yet, and who knows if they'll ever be, not to mention that they are not for everyone. My grandmother is not going to ride one -- nor my wife, for that matter, nor should the kids. But the Subway is a common denominator."
I used to think so, but some European cities really do offer counterexamples. I'm thinking of places like Munich, Vienna, and Copenhagen. It's not uncommon to see people there who, by American stereotypes, wouldn't be expected to ride scooters: moms with kids, men in suits, etc. Perhaps the urban cultural gap is so vast that what you're saying is indeed true of the US, but I wouldn't take it as a given.
It looks that way because they're moving rapidly from one face configuration to another. But there's no way that's happening by random. I would guess that even just holding the cube constant in a dynamic grip is quite difficult.
