ghufran_syed

I think thats why states usually regulate the industry

so maybe gimp + a gpt model?

you can almost certainly do a chargeback on your credit card, then they have to come after you, and their legal costs will hugely outweigh any payment they are seeking

To be fair, Tom Mueller was also head of liquid engine propulsion at TRW as noted in the wikipedia link, he wasn't exactly an amateur. I had the same initial response to the gp, but I think they got it right: "The primary issue for other companies is culture and institutional ability to foster innovation and take risk." I think SpaceX went after people who knew what they were doing, but were frustrated by the bureaucracy. I get the sense that Blue Origin hired people with experience who were pretty happy with the way traditional aerospace worked, and kept doing exactly the same thing at Blue Origin.

As a doctor, I find it hard to understand why or how a substance that is generally unreactive could cause health problems in the human body. Generally, the less reactive a substance, the less it causes health problems e.g. helium (sure, if you breathe a “hypoxic mixture” of 100% helium, you die, but thats from lack of oxygen, not the helium itself).

Any biochemists out there who can tell me if I’m missing some important context?

try alternately flossing, then using the waterpik, or vice versa. You’ll find that either way, the second modality dislodges food particles left behind by the first. I take that as evidence that both > one > neither in terms of dental health and this of course assumes you then also brush your teeth.

I think you really want the papers posted to be driven by the users. But I understand why you might want an automated approach to bootstrap the site so that there is something there. If you're part of a small research community, it might be worth asking people to post articles they find interesting, and start by constraining it to that community (relevant clip of a paul graham interview: https://youtu.be/rCkCA1EaoVo?si=R6l9UNDjU0yR-fcL , which I think still applies even if this isn't meant to be a "startup")

I wonder if this is a good format though for discussing papers? - There are often lots of little sections of a paper to discuss in detail, and I think it's hard to do that with a linear format of comments controlled by up and down votes

Strongly agree with your approach: "If you're not embarrassed by the first version of your product, you've launched too late"

you can - you ”just” need to get a non-itar job in the US, get your green card, then apply. If you are from Norway, it would probably take you around 5 years to get to that point.

I would agree, assuming the patient workload is appropriate, I think it all depends on how busy the place is. I've chosen to do 24 hour ER shifts instead of 2 12-hour shifts in a place that would see about 1-1.25 patients per hour, mostly during the day so I would usually get 2-6 hours sleep overnight. But in a busier place, I would much rather work a 12, 10 or 8 hour shift as the intensity increases, say to 2-3 patients per hour. And the case mix also matters a lot, if you have a bunch of patients with coughs and colds, or minor injuries, you can see 4 an hour easily, if everyone is a demented nursing home patient or requires a translator, seeing 2 / hour might be crazy hard.

So the doctor gave the best correct general health advice to the patient, AND did the appropriate test, and appropriately reassured the patient regarding the pre-test probability of a good vs bad outcome of the test AND followed up the rare but possible bad test finding appropriately? Would you prefer the doctor give factually incorrect advice in order to avoid upsetting a patient?

It’s interesting that you frame it as “faulting” the patient - if a patient comes in with shortness of breath, should doctors avoid asking patients if they smoke? If they ask a patient about previous surgery, are they blaming the surgeon? If a doctor asks about family or work history, are they criticizing family or work choice respectively?

I think your example is pretty much the definition of zero-sum thinking - why would a benefit to you automatically "subtract value from the system".

I would argue it's a positive sum transaction - the person you helped receives something of value, from a real human they know, strengthening the relationship between the two of you, others in the community see that and are encouraged to do the same, and the recipient feels a sense of obligation to at "pay it forward" any way they can leading to further "good works".

Have you really never received anything of value from someone who had no obligation to do so? Not even a lead on a new job, or an introduction to someone who helped your career, or a mentor? If so, do you really feel the situation would have been better if that information had arrived in an anonymous form?

So an article by an organization that is pro-palestinian (“working to oppose occupation and apartheid”) publishes a story relying on multiple anonymous sources - Is there any reason we shouldn’t consider this propaganda? has this magazine ever published a story that goes against their preferred narrative?

I took it to mean that whatever amount of money people currently think would be needed to be "fair", say, an increase from $20/hour to $25/hour, would within a year or so become "unfair" again, even if inflation was zero. Employers will always want more work for less money, employees will always want more money for less work. Same as the seller of any product would like more money for that product, and the buyer would always like to pay less for the same product.

So you can say the company is "greedy"...but that implies that the worker is also "greedy" - which is true for both IF you define it the way I described above. Or you could say that the company (owners) are trying to maximize their return on investment (time + money), and the the workers are trying to maximize their return on investment (of time).

"The Idea Factory" is a great book about Bell Labs, it doesn't talk about tax breaks or subsidies as much as the need to provide some kind of public benefit to stave off the anti-trust regulator. Which is why they basically gave away the the transistor and the semi-conductor. The Bell system also had a LOT of money, kind of like the Google of their day, so they could fund "moonshots"

"Dealers of Lightning" is about Xerox Parc and is also a great read if you're interested in the subject.

I don't think the level of tax breaks has really changed between then and now for R&D, though maybe reducing the headline tax rate reduced the benefit of them? But I think the main issue is that the money wormhole stopped working - Industrial research labs seem to be a kind of luxury good

and you this this correction is valid because people tend to be very open and honest about their use and abuse of substances?

Probably smoking, alcohol and drug use differences alone would probably account for most of the differences

spacex is hiring...

https://www.spacex.com/careers/jobs?discipline=engineering+-...

Not specifically software-related, but “go it alone” and “resistance is futile” by geoff burch are great, and accessible introductions to the important parts of running a business in the first book, and more specifically sales in the second

You're not addressing the key point - you seem to be saying that corporations are always greedy, but the comment you are replying to is asking why would they be more greedy now? If "more profit = more greed", is it also true that "less profit = less greed"?

yes, but the loan you took out to renovate the stores, buy new trucks, install new point of sale is risky to the lender, so it does change and increase the cost of providing those goods.

Also, you say "pretty inelastic" - you seem to be accepting that food demand is elastic, just less so than other goods. Unsurprisingly, it turns out it depends what type of food article: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2804646/

I guess strictly speaking is was the official position of the US government, but not the CDC: https://www.latimes.com/science/story/2021-07-27/timeline-cd...

Interesting summary on the topic of "what changed to allow progress to happen?", from the intro to the book "Bourgeois Dignity" by Dierdre McCloskey: https://press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/556659.html

I think your point is true, but the implied causation is the other way initially - it's when we started getting rich (= increased productivity), that we could start to support increasingly large populations...which then in turn did lead to more humans producing more knowledge

as a hacker, couldn’t you write a browser plug-in to filter out the subjects you don’t want to see?

Thanks! On one of the feeds, it sounds like they didn't want to leave a bunch of debris in orbit if they had an anomaly

This is what shows up for me: https://www.youtube.com/spacex

It's at 26000 km/h which sufficient for orbital velocity. It looks like it's in an elliptical orbit. I guess we'll see soon if they need to do a de-orbit burn, or if the orbit just intersects the atmosphere and they use atmospheric braking?

People with severe alzheimers have a major problem with short-term memory. So if they are in an environment where everything is the same as it has been for a long time, then can manage a long time, because their long-term memory is fine. But when something changes (like your grandfather going into hospital), it can often completely destabilize them and they often don't seem to get back to their prior level of functioning. I'm sorry your family had to go through that.

The humans should definitely be responsible for making their world a better place