joel_liu

The "non-random errors" point buried a few replies down deserves to be the headline, not a footnote. With Illumina, 10x coverage genuinely washes out errors because they're closer to independent per-read noise. With Nanopore, errors cluster at specific motifs (homopolymers, certain k-mers) due to how the pore physically reads the strand — so the same systematic mistake shows up across most of your reads at that position, and naive majority-vote consensus won't fix it. You need a basecaller/consensus model trained to correct for those specific failure modes (which is exactly what the current-gen Guppy/Dorado models try to do), not just "more depth." That distinction matters a lot for a home setup: coverage is cheap, but knowing where your specific errors are systematic vs. random is what determines whether "buy more reads" actually gets you to clinical-grade accuracy or just gives you a very confident wrong answer.

Thanks for sharing this timestamp - Levin's retrospective on bioelectricity research is compelling. What fascinates me most is how his work challenges the gene-centric view of development. The experiments showing bioelectric patterns can override genetic instructions (like inducing eye formation in non-eye tissue) reveal a whole layer of morphogenetic information we're just beginning to understand.

This case is a significant real-world validation of Lockdown Mode's effectiveness against state-level forensic capabilities. What's particularly noteworthy is that CART (the FBI's Computer Analysis Response Team) couldn't extract the device - not that they partially succeeded or got metadata. This suggests that even with physical access and federal resources, the combination of a powered-on device in Lockdown Mode created an insurmountable barrier.

For journalists covering sensitive topics, this demonstrates that Lockdown Mode isn't just theoretical protection against nation-state spyware - it's also practical defense against domestic forensic tools. The trade-off in usability (disabled JIT, limited iMessage features, etc.) seems worth it for anyone handling confidential sources.

The interesting question now is whether this will accelerate efforts to legally compel password disclosure, since the technical extraction route appears blocked.y

Roast Every word LOL.

Thanks for trying it!

I am waiting for response :-)

Sider 4.0 introduces group AI chat to reduce hallucination by comparing answers from different AIs like ChatGPT, GPT-4.0, Claude, Bard in a group. You can also chat with webpage, image, PDF in every tab without switch tabs between ChatGPT and the current tab.

          Forced-IP-transfer is a double-edged sword

This article is about Huawei and the trade war is the larger background. I had some entrepreneurship experience both in China and the States. "Forced IP transfer policies" is one of the core issues between the US and China. I'd like to share some thoughts about this issue from the perspectives of some entrepreneur friends in China. AFAICT, the real impact of the "forced IP transfer" is very complex. I didn't see any media report about it, so I share it here.

The perspective from media: "Forced IP transfer policies" is very unfair because it helps Chinese companies to get an unfair advantage. It's bad for foreign companies and good for Chinese economies.

The perspective from many entrepreneurs in China: "Forced IP transfer policies" is very unfair because it helps the foreign companies get an unfair advantage. It's bad for Chinese private companies and economies.

Here is the explanation from the entrepreneurs' perspective:

1) The most "forced IP transfer" happened in the Chinese-foreign partnership companies.

2) However, the partnership is between state-owned companies and foreign companies.

3) Most of the state-owned companies are very inefficient. The system makes people lazy and corruptive.

4) The partnership companies did get some technologies, often the older technologies. However, they also get benefits from the state, very cheap land, subsidies, etc.

5)From the perspective of local entrepreneurs: Benefits from state + Foreign tech and brand makes the already-strong foreign companies even stronger. They get double advantages. It's very hard to compete with them. To local entrepreneurs, the Chinese state-owned companies + Foreign companies partnership model kills many local private companies unfairly.

6) From the technologies side, the state-owned companies get some older technologies, but since the state-owned companies have their own issues like lazy, corruption. They didn't get a tech edge in the competition. The transferred technologies outdated very fast.

One example is the Auto industry. Most auto brands from the US is very successful in China, for example, Buick is not very successful in the US, but the overall sales in China exceeded 10M! Ford is also very successful in China https://thenewswheel.com/ford-sales-in-china-surpass-1-milli...

Did the "transferred technologies make them less successful"? It's really hard to say.

There is some "forced IP transfer" in some sectors, but the impact to the overall economies may or may not positive because it makes the local private companies in a very disadvantaged position. It's really a double-edged sword.

Thanks for bringing these references up. However, I think the major reason is still censorship or too much censorship & political dissent. The aim of stealing source code is probably to hack the account of political dissents as Google pointed out. The action was more about "the political motivation related to dissent" than "against US economy". That's my main point.

https://www.spiegel.de/international/business/google-co-foun...

Brin: I don't think it's a question of taking on China. In fact, I am a great admirer of both China and the Chinese government for the progress they have made. It is really opposing censorship and speaking out for the freedom of political dissent, and that's the key issue from our side.

SPIEGEL: Four years ago, you allowed your service to be censored. Why have you changed your mind now?

Brin: The hacking attacks were the straw that broke the camel's back. There were several aspects there: the attack directly on Google, which we believe was an attempt to gain access to Gmail accounts of Chinese human rights activists. But there is also a broader pattern we then discovered of simply the surveillance of human rights activists.

"Second, we have evidence to suggest that a primary goal of the attackers was accessing the Gmail accounts of Chinese human rights activists. "

// Many (most? speculatively) of the companies that are successful in the Chinese market are successful due to China having no reasonable alternative (Qualcomm, Intel, AMD, etc.). //

Yes, I agree that many of them are successful because they have tech advantages and there are no good alternatives as you pointed out. However, there are also many successful non-tech US companies in China. They have/had good alternatives. Here are some brands jump in my mind: Many products from Procter & Gamble Co, Coca Cola/Pepsi, Pizza Hut, Nike, Adidas, Walmart, Ford, KFC/McDonald, Starbucks, Subway.

From my experience in both the US and China, I guess there are far more successful US brands in China than successful Chinese brands in the US. Yes, the US imports more from China, but many products are US brands.

//China erects as many barriers to entry for foreign companies as possible. //

I also agree that business barriers for foreign companies in China are higher than they are in the US. Overall, the US is among the most business-friendly countries.

However, we need to put it into a bigger context. According to the ease of doing business index https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ease_of_doing_business_index The US ranks in the 8th and China in 46th.

1) Doing business in China is harder for both Chinese local business and foreign business than it is in the US. This is the big picture. Especially when you are from the US, you may be very frustrated with some non-sense requirements for doing business in China. Many private local companies also face the same non-sense stuff, but because they understand the environment better, they may come up some tricks to work around the issues.

2) I totally understand that you have a bad experience about the barriers. From my experiences and my friends' experiences, the business-friendly-index for different kinds of business: State-owned companies > Foreign companies > Local private companies in many sectors. The least advantage one is the local private companies. Many local governments are competing for attracting foreign business to boost the local economies. They don't care about small local private business.

// When I talk about the magnitude of impact, I'm trying to compare say the entire loss of Huawei with the lost sales of US companies were they able to enter the Chinese market as easily as Chinese companies may enter the US market. Huawei is tiny on that relative scale. //

Maybe you are right about the impact. However, it's really hard to say the impact of the "protect state-owned companies" policies is a good impact on the Chinese Economies. From the economics point, the "state-owned" companies are very inefficient. It may cause far more damage to the overall Chinese economy.

Another point to see the impact is about the psychological impact: Killing Huawei to people in China is like Killing Apple for people in the US. Its psychological impact is far more than some business barries.

You misunderstood the comment. I didn't mean it's fine. Most people don't like censorship. I just presented the perspective from the other side.

Regarding your point about the "against US economy" or "against China economy". Maybe you are in a war mindset. If we jump out this "war" mindset, we can see "China's barring of US enterprises from selling in China" is really not about against the "US economy". It's about censorship.

1) There are many US companies which are very successful in China, Qualcomm, Apple, Nike, Starbuck, etc. Actually, I rarely heard any stories about the market access problem for non-internet companies in China.

2) There is a "forced IP transfer/partnership" issue in some sectors, for example, the auto sector. It is very unfair. But the result of it is also very complex. I will address it in a separate post.

3) The market access issue of many internet companies, such as Facebook/Google, is about censorship policies. Google operated in China several years ago, but it withdrew from the market because of the censorship requirements from the government. Apple complies with the requirement, so it works well in China. I didn't mean "Censorship" is a good thing. I just mean as far as I can understand, it's about "censorship", not about "against US economy".

"Magnitude of impact": Could you explain more about this point?

Huawei and Facebook/Google case is not the same.

Huawei was put in the Entity list. That means two things.

1)Huawei can't sell any equipment or phone in the US. It's about market access. It's equal to Google/Facebook were denied to access the Chinese market if they don't obey the censorship policies. Huawei was also denied to access mainstream America market for a long time.

2)Huawei can't buy any components and services from any American companies. Even Google & Facebook are not accessible in China, they still have lots of business there.

So basically, Putting Huawei in the Entity list almost means to kill Huawei because Chips from American companies are important for their supply chain. It's not only about market access.

That's the reason many people in China feel very angry.

Well. I guess most chinese people agree that "freedom of thought/speech" is a great thing. Actually, Chinese people did enjoy most of this freedom now except one thing "Promote one person, one vote and multi-party" political system in public.

Korea and Taiwan got their best economic growth stage when they are in an authoritarian stage. China is still in this stage.

Japan is an interesting story worths to study.

Besides these countries, there are many countries, such as many in Africa, doesn't become better after the democratic process.

The Chinese government has a point that "Let's concentrate and grow the economic first. After everybody has a much better economic status, we can consider other things". I think they did have a good point on it.

There is an assumption that the "One person one vote democratic system is the best system for any country in any stage". However, the data just don't support this assumption.

https://www.ted.com/talks/eric_x_li_a_tale_of_two_political_...

It's our side project. Let me know your thoughts.

Thanks.

What's the difference between delicious and stumpupon now?

Mail me at johnwatson2000@gmail.com if you have one.

Thanks.

Thanks for your suggestion. I will release it as a new extension if I have enough time.

I provided a customize button beside the amazon search result page for users to disable it. But it seems many users don't like it, so I removed this feature completely.

Hi, This is Joel, the developer of awesome screenshot the article mentioned. First of all, I apologize for what I did for it in the last version a day ago.

I'd like to share with you my intension for this amazon + google search feature.

1) It's from my need. When I search some shopping items from google, I always want to check them in amazon also.

2) It can help us make small mount of money.

3) I provide an option to disable it.

However, I did it in a wrong way. I should did it like this: 1) Disable it by default. 2) Ask user's permission to enable it 3) Tell users why we add it.

I did it wrong but still respect users. This feature exists only one day and I removed it in the new version(3.2.1).

The intension is to make a small mount of money from the referral links while it still helps some users. However, I did it in a wrong way. Maybe we should did it like this: 1) Disable it by default. 2) Ask user's permission to enable it 3) Tell users why we add it.

>Seriously? You expect us to believe you maliciously hijacked user's search results and put in your own affiliate links just because you thought it would be "nice"??

I just told the intension behind this feature: 1) It's from my need. 2) It can help us make small mount of money. 3) We provide an option to disable it.

I apologize for the bad decision. We should did it like this: 1) Disable it by default. 2) Ask user's permission to enable it 3) Tell users why we add it.

I did it wrong but still respect users. This feature exists only one day and I removed it the new version.

Hi All, This is Joel, developer of awesome screenshot. I am so sorry to add the amazon search result in google search result page without info our users first. It's such a bad decision.

This additional features was designed to scratch our own itch. Because when I search some shopping items in google, I always want to check them in amazon at the same time.

In the spirit of transparency, we should disclose that this feature does bring small amount of revenue to us, which enables us to continue to improve this product.

Since so many users don't like it, we already updated a new version(3.2.1) to remove this feature.

Comparing to Svpply and BagCheck, why pinterest grows so quickly,

How much did they pay for delicious?

Good for all delicious users.It's time to innovate the social bookmark again.

FF4 add on collection selected by Mozilla https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/collections/mozilla...

We developed two package app: Read later fast https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/decdfngdidijkdjgbk...

Quick Note: https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/mijlebbfndhelmdpml...

Cross reading: http://bhorowitz.com/2010/05/30/how-andreessen-horowitz-eval... http://bhorowitz.com/2010/03/14/notes-on-leadership-be-like-...

Could you try Awesome Screeshot https://chrome.google.com/extensions/detail/alelhddbbhepgpmg... and give me some feedback?

Thanks.