This happened to me once, and it ended up taking about 6 weeks before they back got to me. It was a similar “just wait” response the whole time until then.
It turned out to be a very simple change they wanted, but because of the nature of the change I think it’s something they needed to consult their legal team for.
So if they are not giving you any info, but you are able to make an educated guess about what change they might want, you can reject the binary and re-submit. Otherwise you probably will just have to wait.
No, there were plenty of cases in the control group, it's just that there were zero cases in the experimental group. So they know it's very effective, but they were unable to measure the breakthrough infection rate.
How many cases in the control group are we talking about when there were only about 1,100 kids in it?
Also, why is it believed that the vaccine is "very effective" against breakthrough infection in children when that is not the case for other age groups, where the story is "doesn't prevent infection but it works against severe illness"?
18 cases. I'm not sure I understand your point about breakthrough infections in other groups; do you mean that a significant percentage of vaccinated individuals are getting infected, compared to unvaccinated individuals?
Enough vaccinated individuals are being infected for the CDC to conclude in the Provincetown study that "the vaccinated may spread the Delta variant as easily as the unvaccinated." Any time a breakthrough case is reported now you can consistently find statements from public health officials saying "the vaccines don't necessarily keep you from getting sick but they are still effective against hospitalization and death." Given that they don't do routine testing of trial subjects, we can't really even conclude anything from "18 cases in the control group and none in the experimental" except that the vaccines are suppressing symptoms of illness.
Second the other child comment's request for a source on "18 cases," the only thing I can find in the Pfizer press release and major media sources on this is statements about antibody levels.
At current difficulty, 2 hashes/second gives about 614 trillion years to find one block. Not quite the heat death of the universe, but wikipedia says all stars in the universe will have exhausted their fuel.
Actually, in popular music I'd expect I6/4 not to resolve normally to V in a lot of cases, since that's a cadence that sounds characteristically old. I'd expect to a lot of I6/4 straight back to tonic (alternating bass line) or deceptively to vi.
You should change your logo to η , otherwise you're going to be getting this question over and over. At least the hint in the logo may forestall some of it, and if not you can point people to it and give them a little test.
I don't think it will matter. Google misspelled googol. Flickr misspelled flicker (that one was probably on purpose though). If N Reduce hits it big, no one will care about that and they will recognize it as a company that works.
Edit: I just noticed Chrome doesn't have googol in it's spell checker dictionary. I wonder if that is intentional.
It certainly needs more tweaking. FJ, FJFJ, etc isn't in any of the 10k passwords people commonly use, isn't a sequence, isn't a single repeated character, etc, so zxcvbn recognizes it as bruteforce.
A fun extension would be to recognize repeated chunks in addition to single characters.
That's a great idea. More generally, whatever the approach, I agree zxcvbn would be better with a more conservative rating for non-pattern-matched regions.
It turned out to be a very simple change they wanted, but because of the nature of the change I think it’s something they needed to consult their legal team for.
So if they are not giving you any info, but you are able to make an educated guess about what change they might want, you can reject the binary and re-submit. Otherwise you probably will just have to wait.