redlollipop

Loads for me, try again?

How does this differ from Uber's recent AT deployment? https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/03/ubers-self-drivi...

YC is not very good at evaluating medical companies. Its track record is not great.

Interesting post! Curious about two statements made in your post:

"Our proprietary methodology and results have been officially reviewed and approved by clinical Alzheimer’s experts at Stanford..."

What is an "official review and approval" process?

"The most challenging part of our journey so far has been to get access to the largest MRI databases for Alzheimer’s disease..."

Which dataset is this?

I'm not sure how Instacart plans to retain quality shoppers and couriers after this type of dramatic pay-cut.

Doesn't seem so.

What was this? It's disabled now.

This article is long, boring, poorly-edited, and has a great title.

What is the pay?

You really don't get much PR just by YC-association; you still have to pay for the PR you do get.

I wonder how this compares with whatever fashion photographers charge? What a narcissistic way to spend $150k.

There are many reasons for why the "outcomes have not been very useful," so there's not much point in speculating. Suffice it to say if patents have been filed in the past (i.e. some number of people thought their research was worth protecting) and researchers at a given institution are still allowed to file patents on their work, it makes no sense to take away the supporting resources that the institution is supposed to provide to help in filing patents.

"Donald Knuth, a computer scientist, refuses to use e-mail on the ground that his job is to be “on the bottom of things” rather than “on top of things”.

What is the ranking based on?

This is really interesting. Do you have a recommendation for a good quantum computing intro book?

If you read the article, the "complexity" refers to the lack of translation from bench to clinic. IP is the fundamental currency to attract investment to get scientific discoveries through the regulatory process. You can still have "open science" in the sense you are using this term and have patents; see CRISPR/Cas9 as a prime example.

One way to deal with the "complexity of the problem" is to actually keep patentability and license out the patents to start-ups or established companies that can actually do something with them. I guess this would require more effort to match up/recruit the institution's patents (assuming they have any useful ones) to companies that might be interested. But economically, in terms of getting their research translated to the bench more quickly, this is an established model that might be more effective in the long-term.

Indeed, "Participation is voluntary, and researchers can pursue patents on their own, but MNI will not pay the fees or help with the paperwork." This basically shifts responsibility from the institution to the researcher; not sure how this is a good idea.