Ask HN: Why hasn't x86 caught up with Apple M series?
423 points by stephenheron 2d ago 608 comments
Ask HN: Best codebases to study to learn software design?
100 points by pixelworm 4d ago 90 comments
White House fires CDC director Monarez after she refuses to resign
104 donsupreme 65 8/28/2025, 2:09:06 AM cnbc.com ↗
> President Donald Trump nominated Monarez after withdrawing his first pick to lead the CDC, former Republican congressman Dave Weldon, hours before his confirmation hearing.
Is this a record from confirmation to firing?
Also: he had no idea she was actually going to try doing her job. He was hoping for another yes-woman and got someone semi-competent. I doubt they'll make that mistake a second time, expect some reality-TV star to be the next nomination.
Scaramucci wasn't in a Senate-confirmed position, so while perhaps useful as a unit of longevity measure, he’s not a relevant confirmation–firing competitor.
Other sources of guidance, such as the American Academy of Pediatrics' immunization schedule[0] and the WHO recommendations[1] are gaining prominence instead.
If you are an opponent of vaccines or a supporter of "MAHA", who is happy with what the CDC/FDA is doing, you might want to consider that the way they're doing it has utterly failed to convince the vast majority of people who are responsible for actually executing their guidance, and therefore will have limited impact.
As I am neither of those things, I am just glad these other options exist.
[0] https://publications.aap.org/redbook/resources/15585/AAP-Imm... [1] https://www.who.int/teams/immunization-vaccines-and-biologic...
(And no, I am not looking to debate vaccines or whatever else with you. I'm making a point about how fringe movements who get into power then have to solve the same problems the powerful movements did originally.)
Not to mention that common vaccines are not very expensive, even if you're paying out of pocket.
"Nineteen states have laws or regulations that only let pharmacists administer vaccines recommended by ACIP, according to the American Pharmacists Association.
In those states, pharmacies may not be able to dole out shots even for people who fit the FDA’s narrowed range until the committee makes its recommendation."
https://apnews.com/article/covid-19-vaccine-insurance-covera...
The risk in this implicitly will be that some vaccines may be declared illegal, or not permitted in some other licencing model, which means physicians will be at risk of their professional registration to make them available.
I could imagine a similar risk in the prescribing of Mifepristone/Misoprostol. Not to actually declare 'day after' pill illegal, but withdraw licence to use the drugs, and put doctors at risk if they go ahead.
Incorrect.
A lot of scientists believe the Covid vaccinations should never have been approved in healthy young children. Omitting the Covid vaccine from the childhood schedule, in fact, is the position of the WHO, and many European countries, including the UK [1], Germany [2] and France [3]. The USA was an outlier [4].
[1] https://www.nhs.uk/vaccinations/covid-19-vaccine/
[2] https://www.bundesgesundheitsministerium.de/en/coronavirus/f...
[3] https://www.lemonde.fr/en/health/article/2023/02/25/covid-19...
[4] https://archive.ph/aD00n (NYT link)
Not for nothing, but the AAP immunization schedule is explicitly at odds with the WHO schedule regarding the Covid vaccine: AAP says it is recommended for 18 years or younger, and the WHO does not. [1]
In fact, the AAP recommendations include some extremely questionable vaccines for children in the USA, such as Mpox and Dengue. Filtering for duplicates, I count 19 recommended vaccines for children in the AAP document, vs. 10 for the WHO.
Point being: there's obviously a reasonable amount of disagreement here, and any physician who treats them interchangeably clearly hasn't read them.
[1] And there's good reason for this: the risk/benefit ratio for Covid vaccine in healthy children has never been shown to be positive. The AAP is advancing an entirely unscientific recommendation based on, as far as I can tell, US politics.
Let's see:
> The AAP recommends dengue vaccination for children between ages 9-16 who have had a previous dengue infection confirmed by a laboratory test and live in dengue endemic areas (eg. Puerto Rico, American Samoa, US Virgin Islands)
> There is a vaccine available to individuals < 18 years who have been exposed to mpox (ie, JYNNEOS vaccine for post-exposure prophylaxis,) under expanded use authorization issued by the Food and Drug Administration.
> Point being: there's obviously a reasonable amount of disagreement here.
Only if you misrepresent their recommendations!
I literally just went to the PDF guide the OP linked to, which presents it as a recommended vaccination (for a non-endemic disease in the USA):
https://downloads.aap.org/AAP/PDF/AAP-Immunization-Schedule....
But fine, you've touched on 1 out of the 9 differences. You still won't find it in the WHO guide, which is odd, considering that the WHO is recommending vaccines for a number of countries around the world where the disease actually is endemic.
https://downloads.aap.org/AAP/PDF/AAP-Immunization-Schedule....
They have a 1-6 steps right on the first page. Step 1: "Determine recommended vaccine by age (Table 1)"
OK, turn to Table 1. Dengue:
> Seropositive in areas with endemic dengue (See Notes)
Mpox: 18+ "for certain high-risk groups or populations"
You can also turn to page 7 for the same notes for Dengue, and page 11 for what constitutes risk factors that would lead you to consider administering the mpox vaccine.
In the case of Mpox, it's because the disease isn't a risk for most children (especially not in the USA). In the case of Dengue, it's because you can actually kill someone by giving the vaccine before they get Dengue. It's not a great vaccine.
Rejecting one schedule because you read that it was "anti-science" is as non-sensical as accepting the AAP without knowing that it's actually very different than the WHO recommendations.
Ah so they're nitpicks when I call out your misrepresentations, but somehow they're still material to your overall point?
Your mpox and dengue points are nonsense, as already stated, but I wanted to get to this:
> Rejecting one schedule because you read that it was "anti-science" is as non-sensical as accepting the AAP without knowing that it's actually very different than the WHO recommendations.
Who are you even talking to? You've invented a strawman to respond to.
In fact, the CDC doesn't even have an updated vaccine schedule. If you go to their current site, guess which vaccines are included?
https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/hcp/imz-schedules/child-adolesc...
So take it up with MAHA.
They're nitpicks. Let's say I grant you that Mpox and Dengue are not really on the recommended AAP schedule, since they have asterisks. What about the other 7 differences? What about the Covid vaccine? BCG? Hep A? Flu?
> Who are you even talking to? You've invented a strawman to respond to.
It's the topic at the root of the thread. Presented these two options as better alternatives to the CDC.
> In fact, the CDC doesn't even have an updated vaccine schedule. If you go to their current site, guess which vaccines are included?
OK. So you're saying that nothing has actually changed? So what is the problem with the CDC? What's your applicable criticism of "MAHA"? Again, I refer you to the top of the thread:
> The physicians in my life - including my spouse - have essentially all abandoned the CDC and FDA as a source of decision-making on vaccines and pharmaceuticals, except for what is required by law. Other sources of guidance, such as the American Academy of Pediatrics' immunization schedule[0] and the WHO recommendations[1] are gaining prominence instead.
> If you are an opponent of vaccines or a supporter of "MAHA", who is happy with what the CDC/FDA is doing, you might want to consider that the way they're doing it has utterly failed to convince the vast majority of people who are responsible for actually executing their guidance, and therefore will have limited impact.
Having read the AAP's schedule: the recommendations are Mpox and Dengue are only for populations at risk, and not necessarily infants: e.g. Mpox is indicated for individuals 18+ and at risk; Dengue is indicated for ages 9-16 in areas with endemic Dengue and with history of prior infection.
Mpox isn't endemic in the USA, and children under 18 were never a risk group here even during the outbreaks a year or two ago. This is purely political.
The Dengue vaccine is...not very good, and has serious interactions with the virus itself. Getting the Dengue vaccine before you get Dengue can put you in the hospital. Even suggesting that this should be on a document of "recommended" vaccinations is, quite frankly, stupid [1].
I recognize that the AAP puts asterisks on these things, but the point is that there are big differences between the schedules, and you can't just put blind faith in their recommendations because you've decided that the CDC is anti-science.
[1] https://www.cdc.gov/dengue/hcp/vaccine/eligibility.html
> The Dengue vaccine is...not very good, and has serious interactions with the virus itself. Getting the Dengue vaccine before you get Dengue can put you in the hospital.
The "asterisks" contradict what you're saying: one of the Dengue recommendation's conditions are people who have diagnostic confirmation of a previous Dengue infection (endemic areas include Puerto Rico and American territories in the Pacific); Mpox is recommended for people over 18 (minimum age) which meet a series of risk factors primarily concerning being men-having-sex-with-men plus other conditions.
Seemingly having found more in the recommendations than you have, it seems to me the AAP's recommendations are complementary, rather than contradictory, save the recommendation for COVID-19 vaccination.
I mean...they're recommending a lot more vaccines in general, so I guess you can frame that as "complimentary", but the WHO document also has a number that are not on the AAP list:
https://cdn.who.int/media/docs/default-source/immunization/i...
Everyone is fixating on Dengue and Mpox because they think they know something about them, but just in the core set, there at least 9 major differences between the schedules: Hep A, Flu, Meningococcal, Covid, RSV, BCG (TB), Dengue and Mpox.
They literally list a positive blood test for previous Dengue infections as one of the requirements for getting the vaccine, in the document you're looking at.
Please stop spouting bullshit while desperately searching for something to latch on to.
Or was she put in that position for the purpose of being fired, just for the news story, and this is all going to plan?
> Weldon, a Florida representative from 1995 until 2009, has been critical of the federal government’s oversight of vaccine safety. While in the House, he sponsored a bill that would have taken vaccine safety oversight from the CDC and created a separate “Agency for Vaccine Safety Evaluation” under HHS, and as recently as 2019 repeated the disproved claim that “some children can get an autism spectrum disorder from a vaccine” in an interview.
:(
Old owners sell the business, become the C team with profit targets for a big payout.
Minutes after the payout the old C team resign to be with family/visit foreign country.
New C team comes on board.
New C team cant figure out how the numbers work.
New C team realises that the books arent as in the black as described.
New C team refuses to go down with the ship, resign to be with family etc.
Owner manages the business for a few months, sells it back to one of the original owners for pennies on the dollar.
In politics, we saw what happens when the republicans can't agree with each other and failed to elect a majority leader. We also designate 1 person to control a significant part of our government, not a committee people with opposite view points.
Inconsistent messaging from leadership creates distrust amount the workers/population and prevents people from accomplishing anything.
If the purpose of the organization is based in science, what does it matter if you accomplish anything if you've fired all the scientists and all you have left are the politicians and spokespeople?
And if the acts of Congress that created your organization mandate that science be conducted, is it maybe time to do some soul searching about why no one wants to sing your terrible song?
How can an organization learn, recognize new facts, adapt to change, and synthesize knowledge if everyone is constrained to singing one song?
But yes. Getting hired and directly opposing the direction your boss wants to take isn’t a recipe for a long career.
Covid vaccines seem like they are going to be more of a pain to get because I will have to go to a doctor instead of the pharmacist. Flu and pneumonia vaccines don’t seem to be affected yet.
I am paying more attention to other country’s health departments since you can no longer trust the US.
On the other hand, the US was one of the last countries to admit that the COVID vaccines - especially the non mRNA variants effectiveness wore off. I got a booster off label a couple of months before it was officially recommended in the US based on credible evidence from other country’s health departments
I could literally scream until my lungs bled over the credulousness and willful ignorance of the broader populace. I understand there will always be esoteric areas of science and technology that no layperson should be expected to meaningfully comprehend, but why doesn't that still induce the natural response of "Ask my doctor,"? The lack apparent lack of critical thinking skills is frankly appalling.
There's some intense irony here that "vaccine tourism" used to be an active economic boost for the US (https://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/covid-shot-tourism-latin...), and now it's going to be very much the other way around.