beowulfey

This is my philosophy too. It’s fun to be excited! Way more fun than being pessimistic. I think the naysayers just handle disappointment differently than I do.

Every single thing bought in the lab has to be justified. If there had not been a need to take videos of hovering mm-scale superconducting fragments before, a good videography setup may not be present in the lab. And don’t get me started on what it would take to GET one…

Ha, I'll definitely admit it's not the best metaphor. My point was the last sentence of my original comment: when you're in the heat of discovery, witnessing something for the first time, you are NOT thinking about the quality of the video you are trying to capture! These videos were not intended for public consumption -- they were likely sent to a friend or something, showing the exciting thing they were witnessing.

It just irked me that people are looking at this video and thinking that this is a press release or something.

Wow, I’ve never thought about it like that before. You’ve done a good job explaining your opinion on this matter! Thanks for the feedback.

Congratulations on owning an iPhone! (I do too, they’re great.) But I want to emphasize that the quality of the phone camera was not the point of that story.

Imagine you have dreamed of some new discovery your whole life. Let's say you are convinced that, I don't know, there exists in the world a naturally bright pink species of cat. You study cats; you know their behaviors, and can guess at the means of finding this elusive pink jungle cat. You search for years to no avail... when suddenly, without prior warning you are on vacation in some remote island and hear a rumor. This pink cat you've searched for is known to the locals, and they can tell you exactly how to find them. You follow the guidance and sure enough -- there they are! The legends are true! You're shaking with excitement and want to document this finding for other pink cat researchers, but you don't have any professional equipment. Just your phone... but any evidence is better than nothing, right??

TL;DR: You are not the intended audience for these videos. They're not trying to convince you -- it's meant for other researchers. We are just seeing the leaks.

The variables that lead to its formation are not all accounted for yet. The process is understood, but it doesn’t always work. So there must be something missing every now and then.

A few things:

* the paper wasn’t ready, and internal drama is what led to it being released

* I’ve read that the process of making it is quite difficult. There probably are not many samples out there in the world

Basically, it wasn’t ready for primetime, but I believe it’s close

Here is the description how they measured the impact of sun exposure to the results:

> The exposure of skin to UV radiation was clarified with different questions. The self-estimated lifetime exposure was studied with the following question ‘How often have you exposed yourself to sunlight during your lifetime?’ The answer options were (1) ‘seldom’, (2) ‘occasionally’, (3) ‘often’, or (4) ‘very often’. The sunburn history was studied with the following question: how often has your skin been burned due to sunlight during your lifetime? The answer options were (1) ‘seldom’, (2) ‘occasionally’, or (3) ‘often’. The answer options for the question of ‘Main environment in working history’ were (1) ‘outdoor’, (2) ‘indoor’, or (2) ‘variably both’.

They saw approximately the same distribution of sun exposure across the different test groups, it looks like.

I would say an order of magnitude more likely, even. People always underestimate just how much even a tangential social connection improves your chances.

(FWIW, this is also why I think recruiters work.)

Yeah, I can imagine it seemed like a good idea at the time. But it probably could have been done differently and I definitely think it should be fixed now!

Ahh that makes sense. I was wondering what was going on with the two papers and thought it might be something like that too. Thanks for the extra details.

Someone who speaks Korean may have to go through the original paper. It is LK-99 though; I wonder if they tried 99 other combinations first!

This could probably be debated for hours, and I’m not firm on this belief (curious to hear what others think) but I believe Reagan contributed to this decline with the deinstitutionalization of mental health.

With the slow ascent of wealth inequality causing more people to feel financial strain, people at the bottom who mentally break no longer have a means to get mental health care.

(These days it is incredibly hard to get mental health care in the USA regardless of your financial status, IMO.)

I use firefox for everything. The only site I know that doesn’t work is an internal app at my work that was written in FileMaker pro. I just use Edge/Safari for that one.

That’s beautiful. A monotype version would be something to see.

Cryogenic temperatures maybe?

I think it’s just a matter of taste, honestly.

I don’t enjoy 4chan (I mostly browsed /mu/ when I visited) probably for the same reasons that you do. And that’s perfectly fine!

This is transitive risk.

Asbestos is clearly linked to cancer > asbestos was found in talc and known to form with talc naturally > risk of using talc that isn’t pure.

The problem is whether talc is pure. At that point it becomes a question of how much you trust J&J to verify that. My guess is that different mined sources varied in asbestos composition and there likely was some contamination that went undetected. But who knows.

I take it you’re not really one for HOAs.

I don’t know. To me there is a difference in blocking a specific tool versus blocking a specific topic or phrase, which is what I would call censorship.

Even the media type being blocked still has (albeit worse) alternatives; instagram, youtube, snapchat, and probably others have a similar format that could still be used. So it’s not really preventing us from using the “short clip” format for speech in general.

Maybe I’m just old. But it feels disingenuous to call it an affront to freedom of speech. TO BE CLEAR, it’s not GOOD, and I don’t think it should HAPPEN. But it’s just weird to see the meaning of words shift before my eyes.

None of things you list here have anything to do with speech, though. Nor do they oppress the things you say.

The point of parent’s comment is calling this oppression of speech is incorrect, and I’d agree. Does that make this any less of a bad thing? In my mind, no! But lets argue for or against it on genuine terms.

Magic is the word for the gap in our understanding when we witness something that we don’t understand.

I love your interpretation of the importance of magic in maintaining our sense of wonder in the world.

There are options to do things other ways, but most of the time I just use venvs and pip for everything.

Is it because people have to use venvs that people complain about it?

I’ll admit being able to install via an OS package manager, vs pip, vs anaconda etc etc can be confusing, but is any of that really Python (the language)’s fault?

That doesn't help the people who are already hurting by this though.

It's the same idea as the PPP loans -- for people who are struggling to make payments, this would have been incredibly helpful.

It's two separate issues.

I think this is the exact situation I'm asking about, so thank you for answering! It's a good discussion point.

To me it seems like so many companies start like this, but fail to get past the profitability stage. I guess my question is, are these companies going about this the wrong way? Maybe starting with a big surge of funding to get off the ground is giving false hope to products or corporate strategies that just aren't sustainable. I'm wondering if starting small and letting things grow organically, slowly, is more effective overall in terms of success for businesses. I have no idea though.

What are some examples of companies that grew rapidly with VC funding and eventually became successful, profitable businesses? Netflix, maybe -- anyone know others? (I'm showing my ignorance here, I'm sure there are many obvious ones!)

So why bother? Not in jest. If you can't be profitable from the get-go, what's the point?

I know nothing about starting a business. Can someone explain why so many companies these days struggle to make a profit? Is it because they spend with wanton disregard of long term financial balances, thanks to huge up-front funding boosts clouding their optics? Or because inflation has so screwed up how customers value things that companies cannot charge what their products are worth? Or maybe that they are all just bad products?

I have no idea, but from an outsider’s perspective, it is starting to get silly hearing about so many companies incorporating shitty manipulative pricing schemes in poor attempts at profitability. It just seems unsustainable.

I think I’m misinterpreting what “rated for 4000m” means. My impression is this is the maximum safe depth the sub is capable of reaching without damage. And that they are bring it regularly to 95% of that depth.

My understanding of safety margins, as I was taught, is that one should design such that you have a safety margin of 1.5x the intended use case. In other words, for 3800m expected frequent usage, it should be able to reach a depth of 5700m.

Alvin, for example, can reach a depth of 6500m.

But you’re right, we don’t know what that 4000m means, really. I’m just assuming it means safe depth without damage.

This is probably true, to be honest. I retract that part!