temporalparts

It's sad that progress must mean sadness for some. We should have better social safety net so that displacement doesn't mean despair.

Have you figured out if it's Google or software engineering as a whole? I think the safer option, if it's available for you, is to change to a different team in a different part of Google.

Google is huge and if, for example, ads is boring to you, try Google Brain or any of their X projects (self driving cars?). That way you have more data points around what's causing you to slack. It's not necessarily the case that when you do find personal alignment that you won't regress to slacking off.

Which organ is closest to being 3D printed for real patients? I've seen articles about 3D printed livers and hearts almost a decade ago.

Alternative headline from "fish fish fish eat eat eat" [1,2]:

Hitman hitman hitman hitman hitman hires hires hires hires hired

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=231097

[2] https://jakubmarian.com/fish-fish-fish-eat-eat-eat-is-a-gram...

I don't understand why it's search engine's burden to bear for right to be forgotten. Shouldn't the takedown notices go to the source materials, eg newspapers, who actually contains the knowledge? Google is simply the references to knowledge that "needs" to be forgotten, and not the knowledge itself?

It's a cool project! Just as others say, once you get to a notable fraction of the speed of light, you need to account for relativity.

Does this take into consideration that your mass increases as you travel closer to the speed of light?

This analysis is great, but I think there's a highly underrated economic point to be made; technology has unlocked crucial business innovations for climbing. 50 years ago, if you are into climbing, others might hear about it in a specialized tv show or magazine. You also needed to be very rich to be able to afford the time and equipment costs of climbing.

Now with social media driven by the internet, the sponsorship model has enabled people with a passion to be able to sustain a living pursuing that hobby. Independent of the knowledge transfer, deeper knowledge is being created from more people being able to devote their lives to the hobby.

Here's an article about FreeSolo's earnings from sponsorship: https://www.wealthsimple.com/en-us/magazine/money-diary-alex...

I don't think how one dresses up financials will have an impact on the stock price 6 months out; there will likely 2 quarters of earning reports (at least 1) which will dictate the price then, not what was released now.

Your example isn't proportionate. It's selling $14 for $11, which is much closer to selling $10 for $8, which is a lot more reasonable than $10 to $5.

How do you feel about ride sharing and delivery companies like Ola and Uber?

I think yes.

On a human level, we experiment and modify our biology constantly, eg vaccines and working out.

On a humanity level, we're researching gene editing and gene therapy, and historically had appalling theories that led to genocide, which, in its roots, was about changing humanity's fundamental code.

Proving gene editing is currently slow and expensive so it takes a long time gain confidence in result to make such a change.

I feel like this experiment, like Swiss cheese, is filled with holes.

When Angkor Wat was being raided by art thieves operating out of Thailand, they knocked off heads off of buddha not to be disrepsectful per se, but because they wanted to loot and sell those heads on the black market. [1]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angkor_Wat#History

I think it is well known that anyone can donate a building for easy admission. It is no secret, just something available to only the top 0.1%

An investment thesis for Lyft is if you expect Lyft to get acquired. If profitability is nowhere in sight, then the end-game is acquisition. Companies that might want to get into ridesharing is long, and Lyft is the fastest (and probably cheapest if the stock tanks) path towards competing against Uber in the US market.

Any company that is working on self-driving cars will want to acquire Lyft: Google, Apple, Tesla, GM, etc

Any company that is in logistics space will want to acquire Lyft: Amazon, DoorDash, Grubhub, etc.

Any ridesharing company will want to acquire Lyft: Uber (defensively), Didi, Ola, probably not Grab, etc.

There will likely be a bidding war for Lyft because that's the only reasonable path towards competing against Uber unless you think self-driving car is < 5 years away.

> But rearming the body with immune cells similarly modified to resist H.I.V. might well succeed as a practical treatment, experts said.

Do people know what is the existing literature on injecting or transplanting different or modified immune cells into someone as a general class of cures? Seems like this could generalize into something of an alternative to vaccine (or a different class of cures).

I'm sure you can find some consistently bad quality content out there.

Not necessarily. Impressions are important too. Just because you don't think you noticed that annoying (random example) coca cola ad doesn't mean that it won't unconsciously influence your decision to put that into your tray instead of Pepsi next time you're at the grocery store.

Part of the complication is that it would be easy to argue that breaking up these companies built on large network effects will harm consumers (users mainly, but a case can be made for advertisers) because the consumers benefits from the size and robustness of that network.

Half the network is worth less than half of the original network.

My understanding (no sources) is that better treated chickens have:

- Fewer hormones for growth

- Fewer antibiotics (diseases spread rapidly in confined spaces)

- Higher quality meat (Chicken gets more exercise and movement, as well as increased quality of feed)

- Higher nutritional value (increased exercise and sunlight, potentially)

In terms of calories though, it's probably a wash, and more inefficient from calories/money.

edit: formatting

Author here. Thanks for the note!

Thanks for the correction on the well known pangram, I misremembered it as "jumped" instead of jumps..

The perfect pangrams in this work are the ones I generated from my script. Also your favourite pangram includes an abbreviation "vex'd" (vexed), which were not included in my search, but definitely something that can be added!

I did misremember, thanks for pointing it out!

There are such things as defensive publications, which prevents others from patenting something by providing a publicized proof of prior art.

But most companies would rather just patent something.

It's in the wikipedia article:

> Following the case it was suggested by Struan Robertson – editor of Out-Law.com – that Microsoft had little choice but to pursue the issue once it had come to light or they would have risked weakening their trademark.[19] This view was also espoused by ZDNet, who noted that had Microsoft knowingly ignored Rowe's site, the company would have risked losing the right to fight future trademark infringements.[20] Robertson opined that – had legal proceedings ensued – Rowe would have made a strong argument for keeping his domain, as he was using his real name and was not claiming to be affiliated with Microsoft.[19]

I know I'm a day late, but thought I would provide my perspective.

I think there's two aspects to this, is journalism sustainable and is journalism worthwhile. I think publishers are having a hard time with the former, but I think undeniably it is valuable in the latter. As the world becomes more complex and bad actors are becoming more sophisticated, I think the world needs more journalists to uncover truth and reality, especially since there is profit to be made from writing fake news. I think the fact that it's not sustainable now means that we should move to a model where we subsidize news with public funding; not sure what the best structure is, but there is so much good public externalities to journalism that it's worthwhile to fund it with public money.

One additional thing I would add to the article is that large companies have a harder time leveraging someone with multifaceted strengths, which the entrepreneurial route can better leverage. Large companies are about specialization and efficiency at scale for employees; their structure inherently has a harder time to get the most out of the the multiple strengths an entrepreneurial person likely possesses. Conversely, someone who is amazing at only one thing, eg software engineering, but lacks in leadership, sales, marketing, design, etc could have an amazing career in a large company but might have a harder time starting a company where there aren't already teams of people to compensate for his/her weaknesses.

Well the opposite of someone whose resume doesn't sufficiently reflect their value is someone whose resume makes the candidate seem more valuable than they are.

Regardless of how innovative Gmail and Chrome were (and I agree they were), more of Google's "innovative" products are a result of acquisition. This supports the article's hypothesis that Google's internal product innovation is not as great.

Some examples of failed innovation at Google are Wave, Allo, Chat, Plus, etc. Having worked at Google, I can count way more product failures than successes that originated internally.

Cows consume carbon (grass, organic matter), produce carbon (methane, other organic matter), and are composed of carbon (more organic matter). Isn't the article espousing placing a carbon tax on a form of carbon?