alpineidyll3

Honestly many people (including myself) still have the ability to unplug from this stuff, and so I think it's time to do that.

I actually was kinda looking for a reason to give up phones. Thanks google.

But.. are you saying your vector coupling isn't explained by the existing standard model, that the measurement lacked sufficient resolution, or that existing calculations don't agree with your measurement?

The author left out the most important detail:

- Before being ready to leave, make sure you either have, or will have, another opportunity or no need for an employer. VERY often (especially in tech!) employers/managers will have employees, not for their labor, but for vanity, to build a pyramid to themselves, or for image reasons. Such people will immediately send you packing for complaining about non-productivity. Your perception of your superior's alignment can easily be wrong.

Given that precondition... I agree with the premise.

The last time this guy was president people were locked inside and schools didn't work. A reasonable prior is that this airline thing (which did affect me) isn't the end.

People love to have opinions about how technologies should develop, but time and again, market realities are what guide their development. People easily get emotional about life extension, and it grabs a lot of attention because of that, but all those feelings don't measure up to the impossible to extrapolate tertiary effects of any technology which transforms lives, life extension definitely being one.

I'd argue that it's pretty clear that lipitor is partially to blame for our present gerontocracy muddle, but the issue there is that lipitor transfers mortality from the heart to many other conditions, some of which impair thinking. Life extension isn't a monolith, nor are the mechanisms of cellular age in animals. It's a blanket for 1000s of possible technologies. Productive conversations about it would be nuanced, and related to details about a particular technology, which these conversations never seem to rise to the level of. Definitely not this piece or fukuyama's either.

I come to HN for nuance.

This is exactly how I'd imagine the dreck on netflix is made :).

The US likes to pretend free markets are our principle, but we have completely destroyed every notion of a free two-sided market on healthcare. That's the simple explanation for our outcome.

I am glad to see people focusing on this.

If this tool could parse drug patents and draw molecular structures with associated data, I know we would pay 200k/yr+ for that service, and there's a market for it.

In my own field, there's an incredibly important application to parse patents and scientific papers, but this would require specific image=>text models in order to get the required information out with high fidelity. Do you guys have plans to enable user supplied workflows where perhaps image patches can be sent to bespoke encoders, or finetunes?

This from the company I had to call all my banks to refuse charges from because they harbor rampant fraud.

Human beings are naturally envious and covetous creatures. Everyone loves to talk about other people's love lives, and maintains strong opinions about how they should be, while paradoxically relating to the fact that love makes fools of us all.

Meanwhile journalists rest more and more on sexual politics to elicit interest in a public who is very tired of what they have to say.

How about we build stuff, and let people worry about their own love lives?

If people would actually _measure_ the outcomes of peer review instead of talking about it, I think it would meet a swift end.

Empirically, I find no improvement in reproducibility between arxiv and journals. The costs are incredibly high too.

Like many things in our world peer review is a short lived extrapolation which doesn't resemble it's origins but is regarded as immutable gospel. It matters most if what you need is the respect of academics.

Sure, this may be the perspective of an individual suffering from a mental dependence on a dangerous mind-altering substance, but it deserves equal consideration. (/sarcasm)

Unfortunately, I don't think it's this type of visible but marginal nonsense which perpetuates the SF drug economy. There are simply a lot of people making money on the blight. Private equity funds have piled into methadone treatment, even though other treatments are more evidence-based. No matter the customers are penniless wretches, the government is billed astronomical sums to perpetuate their suffering. These are some of the highest profit margin balance sheets I've ever seen. A public which lacks the stomach to account for whether remediations are evidence-based, collaborates with the cartels to keep the whole thing spinning and shambling.

Walk into any hospital waiting room, and count the dollars disappear to "treat" the dopesickness of a victim. Like the rest of the US healthcare system, it's a galactic obvious grift enabled by regulatory capture, operating in plain sight.

Yes. Before criticizing an efficient solution merely because it has a cost we must explain why the non market solution is a farce of inefficient security theatre.

Private flights have no security whatsoever. They are also much more climate unfriendly. If commercial becomes more of a headache people will press up towards jetshares...

This company is such trash. I had to call all my financial institutions and prevent any klarna charges because of how they enable fraud.

I've tried about 40 of these. This one is honestly very good! I love the coverage of artists I've never even heard of. Cheers!

James!? Cool post and a very useful tool. -john

I use python pretty much all day long, and would never use a python environment besides the basics. A Docker is more general, serves the same purpose, less mental overhead etc.

Really, could anyone explain why I should care about python environment tools at all? Because we do fine without them.

If you need NBC news to help you decide on a lifestyle, you're in far worse trouble than marriage could ever put you in.

People who create new things with real impact always end up paying a price. Directly or indirectly there is a thermodynamic necessity that work will emit heat. Some people prefer to live reversible lives and that's fine, but to irreversibly change the world you're going to pay.

In a world of overblown research with hype-y titles, this really takes the cake. I wouldn't get too excited. :P

At what point is an electric vehicle just rolled-up railgun ;p

As a former faculty member who now directs science in industry. Agree.

Economic betters? Isn't the most logical assumption that I run one? Enjoy your cope, peasant.

So much this. Animus towards Airbnb is simply envy. It is not possible to profitably run one while trashing a neighborhood.

People will spend twenty minutes reacting emotionally to this, never pay much attention to empirical changes in response, and never realize it was just fomo on their part.

Remote work makes modern life possible. In almost every major US city commutes, and the pressures of caring for a family 10x'd over the last 50 years. In their heart of hearts everyone knows 90% of the pandemic was not fear of a virus, but coping with exhaustion of a life that had become untenable for most people.

I don't think everyone is as-productive in a remote mode, but knowledge workers who build tangible things often can be more productive, and measurably so.

Excess Management is more visibly pointless with remote work, and naturally excess managers who contribute ~nothing hate it. For example people who manage mediocre webblogs due to be replaced by LLM content such as the author of this document. It makes those people miserable, and the majority of workers in any organization are unproductive. That's all.

... I once had someone in publishing try to offer me nature acceptance in exchange for ... things. The outsized role of these journals in the scientific community when reviews could be done in the open is pretty messed up.

If today's scientific community were as functional as Rudy Marcus' we'd still be progressing. The key moment of his career was prediction of an inverted trend in an unexplored experimental regime. In today's academia, he would have hopped to a startup rather than struggle for tenure with foreign ideas that don't support anyone else's old stack of fluffy papers.

Imo the whole US medical complex needs competition from a small but sophisticated libertarian state without any of the regulations that formed the present system, and I think it will happen. The market demands it, and the world would be better off with some competition. Most likely it will begin with some small nation that sells anti-aging therapies.

There are companies from which you can order bespoke mRNAs. Lead times vary but are in the weeks. Many are abroad. The other components of mRNA vaccines can be assembled by someone with 2 years of biochemical Ph.D. experience. There are no laws against a person assembling and injecting themselves with anything.

I have extra sympathy for the writer of this article, since mRNA vaccines (even if they were a random sequence) are relatively lower risk than many other sorts cancer interventions which are FDA approved. I happen to be an ex-professor, who is a director at a drug company. I know that if I were the unfortunate author of this article, whose heart is in the right place. I would probably be injecting myself with my own janky version of whatever offered hope.

Whether that would actually change my prognosis? Probably not. I can say though that I _would_ and I believe others are entitled to positive freedoms I'd afford myself.

No you are missing the fact that if the qubits are coupled the systems fundamental gap has shrunk demanding a lower temperature for the same error rate.

You should think more about why your rosy scheme hasn't worked yet if you can't explain that empirically maybe you don't quite understand.