OopsCriticality

Not sure if you'll see this, but I did run across a preprint with a few Rockwell authors that might be of interest, "Development of a Translator from LLVM to ACL2" (http://arxiv.org/abs/1406.1566)

I've been wondering for a while, and since this thread seems to have attracted people who may have answers…

Can you (or anyone) provide any insight as to why ACL2 doesn't get mentioned much in discussions of formal methods? I'm interested in formal methods and ACL2 seems like a nice tool, but at least on HN all I usually see is Coq this and Coq that, with occasional mentions of TLA+ and Isabelle.

Perhaps this problem is worse among biomedical journals? I've routinely had publications in ACS journals that go from submission to acceptance within two months, usually closer to one---I hear the same from colleagues.

A few key differences: the $350 model has a heated build platform, larger print envelope, but slower print speed. The heated build platform allows one to use a wider variety of materials---in my experience however, for these consumer printers it's better to stick to using PLA for anything but small objects, unless you're specifically designing for FDM. The steel frame should be an advantage (weight and stiffness to dampen vibrations) but the weights listed on the spec sheet show the $350 and $400 models to be pretty similar.

In the end, I don't know that there's much of a difference based on the spec sheets. It'll probably take someone with direct experience with these models (or the printers they're based on) to decide between them.

In fact, I'd argue it's a little harder for licensed professionals to not stay current with their fields due to the requirement for continuing education credits. Nevertheless, I don't see how any professional can be competitive in their field without keeping current, especially as the world continues to flatten.

The idea that people in tech are "unusually well prepared to study law" through apprenticeship as framed by the GP is strikes me as arrogant and nescient to what other professionals do. Actually… it reminds me of an Xkcd: https://xkcd.com/793/

The author's remark on Twitter reads to me as if she has been waiting for an opportunity to criticize pg's recent essay.[0]

There doesn't really seem to be a fair basis for the author's criticisms of The Macro, seeing as The Macro has just launched. Edit: article's flagged so whatever, but to complete my own thoughts… It strikes me as uncharitable to attack this new project based on one essay, and unfair to demand an organization change for the better but attack it before it can attempt change.

[0] "Finally got to talk about that ridiculous Paul Graham essay." (https://twitter.com/lhockenson/status/667786124165705728)

I use and highly recommend Fossil (http://www.fossil-scm.org). It can handle each of your main purposes out of the box with ease.

It's got a good command line interface, a built-in web interface, it's self-contained, and the model is easy to understand. It's simple enough that I can use it as a replacement for RCS for personal stuff (like a LaTeX document) but it scales to large projects too (it's used by SQLite and Tcl/Tk, for example).

It's also trustworthy, with a solid, portable, and well-tested code base—not a surprise since it was originally authored by D. Richard Hipp. I have no clue why it isn't more popular.

This has literally just fallen off the front page: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10592712

Interesting… looking at the images, my first thought was that this was a demonstration trying to comment that recent happenings at Harvard and other colleges are diminishing the legacy that the black professors there have created (or something to that effect).

You're right that chirality is important and this thing isn't able to probe that. As to what I'll broadly call "sample prep", you're right again to point out how that is a critical consideration. So you're double right. Operating in NIR does give deeper penetration, which is one of the reasons to consider NIR spectroscopy in an application; I'd guess that this thing operates somewhere in the 700–900nm range, but I admittedly don't know what kind of interrogation volume that gives for a pill.

So, I'm wrong to casually dismiss opacity of the target. That stems from a bias due to a background in instrumentation (meaning, I start my thinking there). I think I'm still right though to think that instrumentation is a bigger problem than sample prep for this device, which I didn't do a good job in stating earlier.

What's the goal of the project, is it to produce cheap insulin, or is it to validate "open-source biohacking"?

If it's the latter, why start with such a hard molecule; isn't there a lower-hanging fruit?

If it's the former, it would seem grounded in the assumption that biosimilar insulin unavailability in the Western markets is due to the lack of a royalty-free production method. I'm not sure that is the case (and please, correct me along the way). Biosimilars face a more rigorous/expensive approval process than generics (as they should), they're more expensive to produce under GxP conditions, and they're more expensive to store/transport/etc—the upfront costs are higher, the production costs are higher, and the logistical costs are higher. A small portion of NRE costs in the beginning would seem to be a drop in the bucket compared to the rest. Are you planning to address the rest of the lifecycle? Also, there would seem to be a lot of handwaving over the folding problem… do you have direct plans to address it?

I don't intend for this to come across harshly—I'm genuinely curious and hope this comes across constructively.

Raman spectroscopy is used in pharma manufacturing and law enforcement to inspect pharma evidence in the field, but compact Raman spectrometers are a couple of orders of magnitude more expensive than this consumer device. Also, you really need an analytical chemist to interpret the data. Raman is hard.

NIR spectroscopy, which is what this product uses, isn't very sensitive and wouldn't be a good choice to look for trace contaminants even on quality instrumentation.

I agree that this device wouldn't work for that assay, but the opacity of the pills isn't a factor: the optical bench is too small and the illumination will be too low to do anything worthwhile.

How does that qualify as a software bug? Perkin-Elmer's custom null corrector was misaligned so the mirror was figured into the wrong shape. Edit: if anything, it was an organizational failure—PE chose to ignore other measurements that showed the mirror was the wrong shape.

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/1991000...

Grossly simplifying and considering brands with all else being equal, Motorola has historically had great RF engineering, Nokia is good, LG and HTC would be good to average, and Samsung and Apple would be average to mediocre. This is truly a gross simplification, as all else is not equal: it depends on the specific model of phone (sometimes differing greatly between carrier), the bands used in an area, etc.

Ultimately, the only sure option is a "live fire exercise". Apart from that, maybe try a reddit subforum for where your father lives and see if they have good, local advice?

> Car companies can't outsource production to Foxconn.

What about Magna Steyr, Karmann, or Valmet?

In fact, a long felt and unmet need in the field would serve as a secondary indicia of non-obviousness.

A similar problem happens on iOS CarPlay.

If you're getting navigation directions in Maps, and then go back to the home screen (say, to play music), there's a temporary notification dropdown that appears from Maps with your next turn info. The problem is that the dropdown covers the top row of app icons, so if through muscle memory you (as I do) hit home and then hit Music, you hit the notification instead of Music and end right back in Maps. It's infuriating.

This problem makes me question if anyone from Apple's CarPlay team has actually used their own product in a real setting.

No, a contribution only warrants scholarly authorship when it is a significant intellectual contribution to the topic of the manuscript. Short of that threshold, it appears in the acknowledgements; the acknowledgments is attribution for the work.

As geebee pointed out, current practice may not be enough to acknowledge the role of technicians, core facilities, etc. in research and the issue is ripe for discussion. Nevertheless, I don't think that changes the meaning of scholarly authorship.

> You raise an important question. It is important to detail the actual contribution, since programming may be perceived as purely implementing an idea with no creative input.

Beyond creative input, there's also the question of liability in case of academic misconduct. I'd question if someone acting in a technician role (say a programming professional) would have a full understanding of the manuscript and so could accept authorship; they may also lack the ability to check the findings of the manuscript which is also problematic.

> If you successfully take an idea from concept to working software, or if a research project requires complex software to be written, I think it is almost inevitable that the software developer will end up making a creative contribution.

I think we need to be careful about how we define creative contribution; there's a line to be drawn somewhere in there between a creative contribution for the sake of the software (i.e., speeding up execution time by 4x for a simulation running on a cluster) versus a creative contribution that enables the research (i.e., a novel real-time optimization algorithm for electrostimulation). The latter certainly warrants authorship, but I don't think the former does.

> I'm also a bit suspicious about the justification that you can't be listed because aren't a "scientist". Of course, I don't know the details, but it seems fishy.

Ditto, which is why I asked. My first thought was that it sounded like scholarly authorship was poorly explained and if so I was hoping to help out with that.

> I wrote the majority of the analysis code for one of the chapters of the IPCC 5th Assessment and yet was told my name couldn't be put anywhere as I wasn't a 'scientist'.

Can you be more specific about the nature of your contributions? Writing code would seem analogous to performing experiments, which alone is insufficient to warrant authorship (but should get an acknowledgment).

Very true. To be charitable, the future is in personalized medicine, so if a vitamin C population subset can be well-defined then maybe there's something here. That said, cancer cells are notorious for expressing efflux pumps and in so doing frustrating treatment, and there's every reason to think that would happen here given the high doses and long time needed for therapeutic effect.

I have to say, the very first thing that came to mind when I read the article was Xkcd: http://www.xkcd.com/1217/

I'm cheating a little on the date, but The Three Body Problem by Liu Cixin stands out. It was translated into english late last year, and received the Hugo this year for best story. It's wonderful sci-fi written on a grand scale, and made all the more interesting and refreshing to me by coming from outside the Western perspective. It's one of a trilogy: The Dark Forest english translation is out, and Death's End is coming beginning of next year.

Also enjoyed Seveneves by Stephenson, and H is for Hawk by Helen Macdonald. The former is likely known to the HN crowd; the latter draws comparisons to T.H. White's classic The Goshawk.

Among non-fiction books, I enjoyed The Little Prover by Friedman and Eastlund. It was exactly what I expected, a gentle introduction into inductive proofs in the idiom established by The Little Schemer.

> "When skepticism based purely on vague assumptions leads to premature conclusions, it becomes blind cynicism."

That looks more to me like perfectly valid critique based on simple assumptions arising from an understanding of physics and engineering, hardly "blind cynicism". I'd instead say that this TC article itself is an example instead of "blind faith" by taking uBeam's claims at face value.

I'm still waiting for uBeam to even attempt to address the nonlinear effects of their proposed ultrasound frequency and power in air. Ditto for actually addressing safety concerns head on rather than casual dismissal.

I won't be surprised if they can power a cell phone in a controlled environment. I'll be mildly surprised if they can power one in a real-world environment, say sitting on a coffee shop table. I'll be amazed if they can deliver more than a couple watts, to accomplish (as appears on their website)

    A world in which every electronic device - hearing aids,
    tablets, sensors, light bulbs, computers, flat screen TVs - 
    could be powered simultaneously with one simple device.

GM bought Saab. Ford bought Volvo.

Agreed on your two points. I'll add that my own experience of licensing (my own) IP from a top-25 university TTO has been interesting: their terms are pretty fair, they haven't been too sluggish on coming to decisions and executing, but despite their previous successes with monetizing their IP they come off as pretty clueless about business in general. I also get the feeling that while they certainly want their money, they're really more interested in the prestige of being able to let their PR office go nuts about how their IP is a commercial success.

What were your thoughts on the whole "cult of the molecule" thing from the interview? It struck me odd that Sam would ignore any number of collaborations that have happened and are happening in pharma, and ignore the (as I see it, very legitimate) motivations for maintaining trade secrets.

I'm still wondering what YC's value proposition is in this space: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9998739

You know how if you're stopped at a light and clean the windshield, the washer fluid sprays, the wipers cycle, and then there's some drips of washer fluid at the top of the wiped area that then drips down the windshield so you have to manually trigger the wipers again? My old Saab had a delay built in to the call for wiper fluid so that it would automatically sweep the wipers a few seconds to get those last drips. It was but one of many thoughtful design elements.

Saabs had a character that was unique; regardless of how one felt personally about driving one, the auto world is poorer place without Saab.

TCO doesn't address unpredictable system load or execution time. Recursion doesn't lead to predictable systems.

Predictable reliability is relevant, certainly. Safety critical systems are frequently hard real-time,[0] by definition resource-constrained.

Aspects of functional paradigms are good for safety critical systems, e.g., using pure functions when possible, when it leads to more predictable and testable systems. Recursion and non-strict evaluation, however, are clearly problematic viz. stack consumption, system load, and execution time; ditto for purely functional data structures and associated functions.

[0] I'm hedging here with frequently, but I'm having trouble thinking of safety critical systems that aren't hard real-time off the cuff… perhaps supervised expert systems, say an automated pathology platform, might count?