dannykwells

Final sentence is brutal:

And when provided with some of the responses from other physicists regarding his work, Wolfram is singularly unenthused. “I’m disappointed by the naivete of the questions that you’re communicating,” he grumbles. “I deserve better.”

My understanding is that this was, long-term, very good for Coke. Check out this line:

" On 11 July 1985, once the extent of the soda brand’s mistake had become evident, Coca-Cola relaunched the original recipe, rebranded as Coca-Cola Classic.

According to the beverage corporation, the news of the drink’s long-awaited return “made the front page of virtually every major newspaper”. "

Talk about free advertising!!

From a biased source: https://www.coca-colacompany.com/news/the-story-of-one-of-th...

"The events of 1985 changed forever the dynamics of the soft-drink industry and the success of The Coca-Cola Company, as the Coca-Cola brand soared to new heights and consumers continued to remember the love they have for Coca-Cola. "

3 comments in 5 years, interesting to choose this hill to die on.

I'm working with the Satpathy lab on their project. I'm a PI at the Parker Institute. We usually do cancer, but are bringing our tools to COVID research in this time.

Fixed!!

I'm part of one of these! Very exciting. Overall fastgrants is a great organization. 48 hour turnaround is incredible and could be paradigm shifting for getting science done. Thanks pc and everyone else for the chance to get some science done!

Um, the better the university the more money you have to bring in, not less. Stanford and the like have minimums for faculty to bring in money.

They do take good care of them, though, by giving them good lab space, great grad students, modern cores etc.

I really like this point, and 100% agree having had a wee one recently. I've found I'm more discerning about opportunities, not jumping headlong into any new thing.

If anything having a kid has helped me focus, by cutting out a lot of extraneous noise in other parts of life.

Some great correlation = causation analysis here (Sanders win likelihood vs Tesla stock):

https://www.quiverquant.com/blog/

Sounds like the founders might need a basic course in stats, before giving stock tips.

Sorry OP, but my feeling is, without quantitative metrics, this is useless. As others have said, each company will choose only positive things, and it will be hard to tell companies apart.

What I really want, and no one has made, is for some comprehensive scraping of LinkedIn and Crunchbase to help answer the following questions for each company:

- Average turn over time for different job types

- Average experience of new engineers (new grad vs. 10 years)

- Distribution of management vs. engineers vs. PMs etc.

- Are management promoted from engineering or hired from outside?

- Have the founders had successful companies before? In the same area or different?

- What schools did employees go to? What is the education distribution of employees?

- what's the gender/race/etc. make up? (Does the company actually value diversity) etc.

Answer those, comprehensively, and I'd easily pay for access to that service.

Alternatively, if you are having companies post jobs, have them answer those questions (and tell them you'll check against LI/CB). i.e., get actual transparency where it matters, not just fake/propaganda transparency like you have here. That would actually help me make a decision to apply or not.

Inflammatory title not supported by the document. Please fix.

Can we revisit this now that it's clear how wrong John was? The US already has 6000 deaths from only 250k confirmed cases. It is assured we will cross the 10kthreshold,and likely the 100k one.

It's important to hold people accountable for their (massive, scary, indefensible) assertions.

Yeah we just watched it a few nights ago. Truly is excellent.

And so, so 90s.

For anyone wanting to have a wonderful 90s flashback featuring the theft of high-end art, you can't do worse during shelter in place than to watch the Thomas Crown Affair: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0155267/

No, you are wrong by confusing number of cases with deaths. Flattening the curve reduces the max number of cases, which reduces hospital overload, which in tun saves lives. Without any intervention we were/are looking at 1M+ deaths:

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/03/13/opinion/coron...

That's a lot of people to condemn to death. Do you have statistics to cite for "Economic related deaths" that you quote?

This is conservative, but also, this is happening in a very short time frame, AND is taking into account all of the social distancing AND is happening at the same time as flu.

Without the distancing measures we have in place we would be looking at millions of deaths.

Once this is over, it will be very tempting to say, "Look it was only as bad as flu, we shouldn't have trashed the economy just for that..." but that of course is not fair reasoning. We only will have 200k deaths because of the distancing.

Ummm, it's more like, saying, I had one wife 8 weeks ago, and 4 7 weeks ago, and 16 6 weeks ago, and 64 5 weeks ago, and 256 4 weeks ago, and 1024 4 weeks ago and 4096 3 weeks ago, and 16384 2 weeks ago, and 65536 1 week ago, and I have 262144 today, so in 4 weeks I will have 16777216 wives.

That is, there is more than a single data point supporting the claims of exponential growth. There are lots of them.

Nice try though.

I think Minerva has a big online component: https://www.minerva.kgi.edu/

Fully accredited by the KGI so also has some legitimacy.

Updated: comment was only for US since John is based at Stanford.

Yes, only thousands. The point of the quarantine was to avoid deaths of millions. China has flattened thoer curve, no one else has.

Let's check back on this piece in...2 weeks, say, when there are 10,000+ Corona deaths in the US. Well see how it ages then.

Source: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/03/21/upshot/corona...

427× 16 =11102

Honest question: does the NSA have good engineers? Like, FAANG good? It seems like a funny "hype line" for a startup, because I think of government engineers as ok, but not like, rockstars.

But maybe I'm wrong?

I feel like it would be nice to have a "rising" category - most of these are from heavy hitters/already famous.

However, very cool - any thoughts for other categories (SciFi, etc.)?

Clearly these tactics are despicable...and they work. Bloomberg is just demonstrating that he's the only one who really learned from Trump how to win in the modern era. Trump, of course, had Russian trolls posting rather than these folks...but potato/potaato.

And he's right - he went from nothing to third place (in national polls) solely through (mostly internet) ad spend.

What I don't understand is why every candidate isn't taking a similar approach. These guys are showing it's not about events, likeability, policies, history, etc. It's just about mass manipulation enabled by the internet.

Thank you! What a "reporting" feature? For each missing feature :

1. Send email to relevany NIH branches, informing them that this trial is in breach.

2. Send email to relevant school admins, and trial PI, saying similar and informing of email to NIH?

3. Email to Science magazine, who has written articles on this, to encourage more name and shaming?

The taxi cab story is easily a top-5 math story, and is quintessential Ramanujan.

Has there been a genius of his kind since? Maybe Terry Tao, but his work also lacks the ease and lack of machinery that Ramanujan had. Truly amazing.

I knew I kinda knew that name! Good reference, thank you!

Ok, mostly there. Will try to find more.

I'm out w my newborn but will do when I get back.

This article is absolute 100% bullshit.

-Metastatic melanoma: used to be lethal, now 50% cure rate.[1]

-Non small cell lung cancer: same, now around 25% [2, 4]

-Breast cancer used to have a terrible prognisis, now 75% survive. [3]

-Not to mention the myriad of blood cancers with new, strong, cell therapy treatment options with 40-50% durable cure rate.

I don't know this person, but seriously, whoever he is, fuck you dude. Millions of us work day and night trying to improve care, and 99% of us arent getting rich.

[1] https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1709684

[2] https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1801946

[3] https://www.breastcancer.org/research-news/20100930

4. https://investors.merck.com/news/press-release-details/2019/...