Giant miscanthus can grow on land that's not viable for farming food (other than grazing grasses), has a lot of properties that ready it for becoming charcoal (high tonnage per acre, self drying, minimal inputs needed). Without a price for carbon, it's hard to make it work, though.
A compromised relay server can't access the data because it's encrypted.
A meaningful vulnerability would have to be in either the software itself or in the coordination server. That attack surface is the same whether or not you have relays.
You can reduce the attack surface to just the software if there's a way for users to verify keys manually. But again, same attack surface whether or not you have relays.
Speed of development of something important isn't necessarily good. Humans are bad at absorbing a lot of change at once and it takes time to recognize and mitigate second-order effects. There's plenty of benefit to the systems that disruptors operate within (society) to not moving as fast as possible... of course since our economic systems don't factor in externalities, we've instead turned all of society into a commons.
People said the same thing about the printing press. When you look across human history it's tough to make a moral case that slowing down technology development was ever a net positive. We can't reliably predict or prevent the problems anyway and it's pointless to even try. Just move forward and deal with the actual problems (which are usually different from the expected problems) as they arise.
I don’t really disagree with you. I think there really is no stopping progress. For better or worse, it’s happening and there ain’t no slowing down.
But, I wish people would shut up about the printing press in these discussions already. AI disrupting literally everyone’s job at the same time is not the same as a printing technology disrupting the very niche profession of scribe. Or electric lamps putting some lamp lighters out of work.
Everyone? I think HN users sometimes forget that the world isn't just software. There is no immediate prospect of AI disrupting much blue-collar work. We're going to need huge upgrades to the electrical grid and someone has to install all the new transmission lines. I doubt that we'll see a robot that can do the work in our lifetimes.
Nah. The alternative to oil was coal, or firewood, or freezing in the dark. The shift to intensive oil use enabled an enormous increase in human standards of living. If anything we should have accelerated it. The externalities have been minimal in comparison.
Killing the earth is minimal? I said slow not prevent. Tech accelerationists think tech fixes everything when it really just lets them abuse everyone for decades before regulations catch up, if they ever do.
Yes, but the cures here aren't general. They're highly specific, and the rare conditions have a long tail- large numbers of different conditions, each with a very small population of affected individuals, and likely, the treatments will be somewhat customized for each type of disease.
See my comment above. Getting approval for rare diseases and expanding the indication to the common form of the disease is a well established strategy in pharma.
Also rare genetic diseases give insight into the underlying mechanisms and pathology of common sporadic diseases, which can be leveraged to develop new and better therapies.
Getting a new drug or therapy approved for a rare form of a disease and then expanding the indication to the common disease patient population is a well established strategy.
Up to 1/2 inch thickness... Great. Just need to 4x that to replace 2x4s, the construction material that the entire US home building process is built around.
But looks like it's ready to go for some applications (plywood). Hopefully they can get it thicker and replace more dimensional lumber. Or maybe I'm reading their site wrong?
That seems unlikely, given that beekeepers have kept hives in similar thin-walled boxes for centuries and colony collapse is a recent phenomenon. Plus CC occurs in wild populations[1] as well, suggesting either a widespread environmental factor or communicable agent.
I wasn't suggesting it was the cause, so much as a contributor. There's a general sense that the odds of CC increase as the colony becomes more and more stressed.
While it felt awkward at first, I've been intentionally trying to befriend my neighbors. I've managed it with one couple and am working on a second. Tech helps reduce the barriers between distant friends, but we're wired to value eye contact and physical contact.
If you don't want to have to talk to customers, which only one developer who I've ever worked with has actually wanted to do, you need a way to equip someone else to do so.
Same thing if you want to keep your investors happy, your counterparts in other departments informed of when they need to have the hardware to pair up with your software ready, etc.
There's definitely such a thing as too much overhead, but developers who just do the things they are interested in without considering that they are part of a larger business are the other side of the coin that you're describing.
I think there are few things that developers object to that don't appear to get addressed.
1. If other departments need metrics/insights/visibility, why don't they go collect it? As a PM, go collect that information yourself and deliver it to stakeholders? Why does everything need to be done by engineers?
2. When engineers get measured, evaluated and pitted against each other using these activities, it breaks camaraderie. We don't enjoy these activities because we see through the management practices of rating people based on the number of proverbial TPS reports or the quality of the cover sheet or the number of story points completed - none of which are actually important to the success of business but very important to the manager who will just recycle them upwards. Do you really think people are motivated to do this meaningless work?
Yeah, they kind of blow past light sheet microscopy, but I'm optimistic that this can still be quite useful. There are brain banks with already donated brains that we could use to learn about diseases, and I imagine many organ donors would be happy to have their brains sliced up for science.
reply