JoshTko

Curious how high this was upvoted with no evidence. Would imply unconscious bias within HN readership of Japanese as obedient.

It's about time these offenses are considered crimes against humanity and have mandatory criminal prosecution at executive levels.

Phage treatments are nothing like that. They are viruses that target specific strains of bacteria. So if someone has produced a phage for your specific strain you would only need to take the phage with no nasty antibiotic side effects. Going to the hospital and taking a antibiotic cocktail seems like the perfect way to get more antibiotic resistant bacteria.

Are there no phage treatments for MRSA yet?

Not really, last thing Tesla wants is antitrust oversight for monopolistic practice.

Doubtful, rents have been increasing during that entire period

https://www.zumper.com/rent-research/new-york-ny

This is a mouse study. Seems questionable as mice would not need to adapt to regular alcohol consumption anywhere near the level humans would have. The length of impact on humans would probably be different than mice.

Those super focused bacteria and parasites are the worst!

Are you saying this article is dangerous because it may further engage folks that have been already enraged due to having been misinformation elsewhere to the point it could result in violence? Also how does that compare with the actual harm and health of innocent people mentioned in the article?

Classic wealth transfer from everyone to the wealthy.

Tumblemoss

I have no doubt we'll find out eventually about how they are harmful to humans as well. Companies indiscriminately puring millions of gallons of chemicals with unknown long term health impacts is an insane policy for an advanced nation. I don't know why we don't focus on mechanical treatments. We have the technology.

Interesting how you don't place any blame on Altman on understand addressing board concerns. A more experience CEO would have read the tea leaves.

This is interesting in that it implies that catching up is possible if you have enough data, engineers and compute. This also potentially implies that adjacent players such as Nvidia could gain an edge long term because they are a leader in one of the three.

Allowing PE to muck around in a resource scare, essential good is a recipe for disaster.

Yes

This is the first explanation that is consistent with all participant motivations

Would be hilarious if the board members were actually consulting with chat GPT on what moves they should make but accidentally were using 3.5 instead of 4

Use custom instructions. I use "Answers should be very concise by default. Never provide disclosures. Answers should get to the point immediately." and get super concise answers. If I want more detail I just follow up with can you expand on X.

In bright snow your pupils are super small as the brightness is constant. At a night show your pupils are dilated in let in maximum light intermittent if exposure in these circumstances could be quite different in terms of short/long term damage

We don't have a shortage. We have too much regulation by AMA limiting number of doctors.

What form of magnesium?

How would this be a huge admin expense? Any company with remote employees already likely have some expensing process, would be probably as much as adding another expense category at best.

Probably make more sense to launch from ground. No reason to lift entire plane into the air. The launch stations can be placed in relatively remote locationst to minimize human or natural habitat impact. Possibly place launch locaitons close to So2 mining location to limit transport Co2.

If 1-4 is implemented, gas would become a lot more expensive. Companies will switch to EV fleets, gas demand would drop, oil companies would not lobby politicians for drilling permits as new drilling would have bad ROI. Voters will to a lesser extent do what companies are doing and purchase lower carbon impact products. The hypothetical voter you speak of would only benefit if they purchase lower carbon impact products and pocket the savings from the check. However the act of purchasing the lower carbon impact product today has far more impact than a vote for a politician carbon intensive policy in the future. The incentives are aligned in that even this weird hypothetical voter will drive the adoption of lower carbon impact products long term.

1. Tax companies for their portion of CO2 generation. Let costs trickle down to customers. 2. Split tax collected evenly to each citizen/perm resident via monthly check. 3. Let market figure out Co2 reduction solutions. 4. Create whistleblower process to keep carbon sequestration companies in check.

The approximate loss of life for major outbreaks in the past 25 years (excluding Covid) was around 500K. In a best case scenario GoF could have mitigated maybe 20% of that or 100k. Let' say one research initiative as r, the chance of that research being successful as s, the chance of that research being on the exact virus causing the outbreak as v, the type of mutation research being the actual mutation the virus had as m, the chance that the government leveraged the research and took action to prepare accordingly to take advantage of that research as g, we get s * v * m * g = P probability of r mitigating outbreaks by 20%. P of r is probably around 1/100 or less. So you would probably want around at least 100 GOF research initiatives to save ~100K lives.

On the surface that might sound ok. However if we undergo a similar exercise of chances of Lab leak causing an outbreak we'll probably end up with a similar figure of 1/100. In a lab leak we'll have to contend with a more powerful variant of a pathogen that has caused a prior outbreak which may kill an order more people than the average outbreak. So perhaps a million deaths alone, or if we entertain that Covid was caused by a lab lead ~10m deaths, or 100x of 100k.

Ultimately it seems GoF research is playing with fire without knowing if the effort actually will reduces total deaths on net.

A much more effective route seems to simply invest in rapid sequencing, rapid wastewater monitoring, PPE stocking/distribution policies, more effective local lockdown procedures/policies.

Any benefit from research of gain of function research is clearly outweighed by risk of lab leak. I.e if the estimated incremental realized benefit of better planning, better mitigation from a single gain of function research equaled X; the cost of a lab leak seems to be 100X~10,000X.

A base model 3 would cost me $25k in my state after IRA rebate.

ITT, people who either own crypto or don't own crypto.