jtraffic

1. Your idea is probably not identical. You execution almost certainly won't be. 2. There is usually room to compete. 3. Innovations often take root slowly and need a network of collaborators and competitors to nurture them.

If you made a kit and put it on Kickstarter I’d buy one. Just sayin’

There are subtle differences between 3D printing types that seem at first to be the same.

Stereolithography is horizontal, one layer at a time, and uses photopolymerization (that's Formlabs). (Also Digital Light Processing is close but distinct: https://formlabs.com/blog/3d-printing-technology-comparison-...)

Continuous Liquid Interface Production (CLIP) also uses photopolymerization, but pulls the object from a liquid bath and uses a buffer zone. Still horizontal slices. The upshot is it's much faster. (Carbon 3D is the company behind this.)

The method in the article uses photopolymerization to solidify the object as a set of slices, but the slices are not horizontal.

The big drawback to photopolymerization is it only works on certain resins which can often have undesirable mechanical properties (high elasticity or brittlness, for e.g.) Potentially this method could be a way forward in that respect, because you might be able to put structural materials in the resin solution and end up with a composite. It seems easier to do this way than with CLIP or SLA/DLP, but I'm purely speculating.

I strongly suspect it’s intentional, to get more clicks. I find it annoying and wish there were a way to push back.

Note that many people still use HMC without a closed form for the gradient, via approximation. In fact, Stan (http://mc-stan.org/) automatically approximates the gradient by default if none is given.

Specifically this is about what business customers of AI startups report about the impacts of AI adoption. Main result is for professional positions it creates more than it destroys, reverse for manual labor and clerical

Totally unintentional, came from copying a link from a website. I just removed the referral.

Auto executives say they need to avoid a nightmare tech scenario that’s become a common refrain at industry gatherings. They don’t want to become the next “handset makers”—commodity suppliers of hardware, helplessly watching all the profits flow to software makers like Apple

Weird comparison since Apple has always made the lion’s share of profits from hardware. Also interesting contrast between big automakers and Tesla. I see Tesla as being in the hardware biz primarily

Thoughts and habits are related, but they aren't the same. Interesting counterpoint to the replacement theory of kicking bad habits: https://www.nirandfar.com/2015/04/bad-habits.html

A bit of self-promotion. I wrote an essay on this topic. Perhaps it's worth reading for those interested in this thread: https://hackernoon.com/a-guide-for-getting-lucky-in-startups...

A bit of self-promotion. I wrote an essay about this. Perhaps it's worth reading for those interested in this thread: https://hackernoon.com/a-guide-for-getting-lucky-in-startups...

This is a fascinating point. Perhaps the cleanest way to fairly treat your option value is to not compensate you in expectation, but to allow you to "sell" your idea internally when you have them. Employees could get a royalty, say, for a successful idea. Pricing the royalty is difficult, but it's still an interesting idea.

As I write, I realize this must have been tried somewhere. I know at one point Sandia Labs allowed employees to start spin-offs using tech developed there, but that's not quite the same.

These are price adjusted figures. So your truck driver could buy double the goods in the US on $4 compared to back home. If he could survive on $2, he can certainly survive on $4.

Nielsen is eager to see what other disciplines will be refined or mastered by this type of learning

of course it goes so much further

The ramifications for such an inventive way of learning are of course not limited to games.

But obviously the implications are wonderful far beyond chess and other games. The ability of a machine to replicate and surpass centuries of human knowledge in complex closed systems is a world-changing tool

Okay then. Let's go beyond games already!

I think R is in the early days of its demand lifecycle. Wait a decade or two (maybe less) and R will get more hate. I'm surprised how fast Julia has advanced toward being a suitable replacement for R. It's just a matter of time. Then Julia will be most hated when Language X comes to replace it.

This begged the question for me: "Is there a fire for AGI?"

He gives one definition that people have used before, about unaided machines performing every task at least as well as humans. But if you dwell on it a while, I'm sure you can find lots of disagreement about a) what that looks like and b) whether it is true or not (conditional on it being true to at least someone.)

This got me into a rabbit hole on Wikipedia about where all the peoples of Japan came from, and what makes the Ainu indigenous. If an indigenous people is the first to settle, not sure the Ainu are clear winners. Lots of dispute about early population dynamics of Japan.

It seems the Ainu are considered indigenous because some have maintained their culture instead of assimilating into the larger group, which is unlike the Jomon and Yayoi people who many believe are the ancestors of modern Japanese people.

This comes to mind: https://hackernoon.com/for-the-love-of-god-please-tell-me-wh...

Or this: https://www.iconaircraft.com/home

In my view, there are many insights like this to be had by physically studying product users a bit more. The startup community has built a strong habit of studying users before a new solution is adopted, but not as much after.

The insights designers get from just watching someone use a product are always delightful. The idea is basically ethnography for design. (https://www.interaction-design.org/literature/book/the-encyc...)

'Desire lines' in parks are one example. Desire lines are the paths in the grass that get worn down because people use them even though the designer didn't plan for it.

Photography seems to be one place where the exchange rate between better skills and better tech favors skills.

I have a friend who makes rock documentaries and his boss will often rent an $8K camera. My friend sometimes shoots on a $500 DSLR, and once mixed in some of his footage. His boss could tell the difference, but it wasn't significant, and it made him wonder why they even rented the nicer camera.

Not the OP, but checking his HN profile turns this up: https://viaas.com/

It's an interesting anecdote, but makes conclusions about the aggregate. Give me almost any university, and with time I could probably find at least one story like this.

I'm not saying it isn't true, just that this evidence is weak.

What explains why the females like what they like? Perhaps I'm just lost, but could it be that natural selection explains sexual preferences, which has a subsequent impact on evolution?

this “aesthetic” courtship, says Prum, creates an environment, temperaments and rituals — a sort of culture — that give the female sexual choice, autonomy and safety

Maybe natural selection at a species level (notice the word 'safety') selects for individual-level sexual preferences? If that is true, the theories aren't substitutes, but complements.

Again, maybe I'm just lost.

Times nods to the fact that millennials are not as homogeneous as society thinks:

millennials, who, as it turns out, are not a monolithic generation

Then, I feel they go right back to the attitude in a new context:

Yet millennial suburbanites want a new kind of landscape.

For some reason I thought the runaway in temps will come from water vapor from melting permafrost, which is starting now. In other words, the CO2 ship has sailed, no?

There is an interesting interplay between stuff and space. I'm married and have two children (3 and 18 months) and we live in a two bedroom apartment. Whether I'm justified in wanting more space or not, I really, really do want it. My wife and I talk all the time about how having more space would be nice.

I'm interviewing for jobs (finishing phd) and our income/cost ratio will hopefully increase, and I think we'll end up in a place with more space. But I don't have the experience to have calibrated to the exact amount of space I'll need. We'll probably overreact and be gluttons for space. Then we'll fill up the excess with stuff.

I don't know, maybe I'm wrong. It just feels like you want space, then you get it, then you fill it with stuff you don't want.

Weights are inversely proportional to the Alexa rank for each startup's website.

I dislike this. I almost hate it, but it at least raises interesting questions.

The reasoning is almost entirely post-hoc. He observes many successful people and their similarities and then claims "I have now told you how to succeed." p(success | trait) != p(trait | success). Hindsight bias is at play.

He makes other weird statements: "you are automatically condemned to waste the rest of your life (see Einstein above)." Mr. Hamming is a difficult guy to please.

Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi studied many successful individuals in a systematic way and acknowledged the inherent problems with this approach. Read his book instead of this: https://www.amazon.com/Creativity-Flow-Psychology-Discovery-...

Finally: "Those who have done really great things generally report, privately, that it is better than wine, the opposite sex, and song put together."

This is strongly contradicted by Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi's evidence. Nearly everyone he talked to (many Nobel Laureates among them) said their greatest achievement was raising a family or something in personal life. I can't claim this generalizes, but I can provide it as a stark counterexample to Hamming's claim.

I suspect that when Chomsky dies, a burst of new and valuable linguistics research will arrive. I'm not saying I hope he dies soon. However, I think his current impact on the field is probably negative.

My theory derives from these sources: https://www.economist.com/news/books-and-arts/21695371-theor... (Chomsky's recent theory of how language evolved has not been accepted favorably), and

http://www.nber.org/papers/w21788 (this happens a lot)