ampdepolymerase

In terms of affordability of land adjusted by weather, Texas is the best place to address homelessness. Trying to fix the situation in SF is difficult due to the lack of low cost land.

If this case can be pushed to the Supreme Court, it would become very interesting. If the case is successful, it would tie nicely into the current administration's efforts in disrupting the tech giants with Section 230.

They are. Quibi was under lawsuit by Elliot Management.

Traditionally known as fold_left

The major anglophone countries make up the five eyes. In practice anything you do would be marginal at best unless your goal is to only thwart commercial surveillance.

Building one is not the same as getting useful power out of it.

If 99% of your users are not paying, then you have a problem. Travis cannot compete with Microsoft when it comes to deep pockets. I think it is too late to get regulators to reverse the GitHub acquisition..

Radon gas is another major threat if you live in a suburban environment.

Since one of the major audiences is emerging economies, what happens if one of them goes to war with another? Can one side get their superpower patrons to order Diem to freeze the accounts of the other?

The most difficult part is the backbone, not the software. The internet's power comes from its large scale and resilience, bypassing censorship and copyright is just a side effect. WiFi Dabba's [0] approach is quite interesting but I am not sure whether it will scale well in practice. Optical communications through free space generally requires line of sight and the bandwidth is low due to atmospheric losses. Broadcasting across oceans is another issue, especially when sovereignty is involved.

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24790350

If a sufficiently large nation state orders the companies involved to deny or override a transaction, is the gossip protocol/blockchain useful at all in denying this? Or is this one of those mechanisms only used for keeping out low level/underfunded attackers?

A number of databases uses the Business Source License (and its variants, usually including a non-compete clause). It acts as an option which vests (switches to a non-copyleft libre license) after n months. There is also the Polyform project but adoption has been low and their licenses are extremely controversial and unpopular.

That facade enabled millions to have easy access to that particular kernel feature. BSD jail's have been around for decades without mass adoption.

A bigger issue is the fact that they were not able to become a unicorn despite having a tremendously popular product. It means there is no money in development tools innovation. This is not a good thing for the software community as it means all tooling innovation will only done and controlled by the FAANGs.

The issue is that it is hard to make money in scientific software, especially for life sciences. You usually get a bimodal distribution: really big, entrenched, and massive software firms and the rest have <100 headcount. There is no middle ground.

Did the individual donor have a three letter name? Or connected to an organisation with a three letter name?

Either way the supply is controlled. Controlling the supply is the problem, not who does the controlling.

No, the correct thing to do is to break the accreditation agencies and professional associations' grip over medical school admissions and massively increase the supply of surgeons.

The more useful outcome is CAD for proteins. Studying existing proteins is just a small fraction of the possible uses.

Regulations on hours of work should also be removed.

In practice it doesn't matter. What Deep Mind has done far outstrips previous results. Now that we know neural networks for protein predictions is not a dead end, the accuracy will easily improve with time.

But do you expect any different from real UBI without any empirical evidence? It is easy to speculate that citizens would achieve some magical enlightened higher state of being where they would dedicate themselves in pursuit of the arts and entrepreneurship. The reality may be that most would just spend the day gaming and smoking marijuana. By discounting the Arabic states, it is doing social science and economics a disservice just because they do not fit the expectations of advocacy and academia. I don't think endemic corruption means that the Arabic model have absolutely zero value, they are hardly the only wealthy country with pervasive grift. Letting political views and biases leak into social science and economics is not helpful at all.

But the effect is same. At the end of the day citizens survive on state welfare. Nobody said UBI is contingent on a corruption-free, western democracy.

Why isn't anyone studying the Arabic states as UBI models? Incompatibility with western democracy? They are the closest to a large scale UBI system right now. Much bigger than those toy hundred people sort-of-UBI-but-not-really experiments.

To clear up some misunderstandings before HN's web developer crowd gets too excited and starts throwing around scientifically inaccurate speculations:

- Accurate and precise CRISPR-based, human non-germline in vivo cell editing at scale still has some ways to go. We are not at the stage (yet) where a couple injections will be able to completely rewrite your genome. Accuracy and precision has room for improvement. In vivo needs more research (the ethics concerns and controversies is a huge barrier for this). And finally scale, which I will address below.

- A quick explanation of germline vs non-germline gene editing.

Non-germline: change just the genes in the affected area. Germline: change the genes in the sex cells (or their product, the zygote) so that the change will be perpetuated. The Stanford professor's controversial editing of the Chinese twins was germline based. Non-germline is hard because you have many many cells and right now CRISPR is still not perfectly precise. Delivering CRISPR to every part of the organ/afflicted area is still not yet well understood.

There was an article on HN a couple days ago on this. It was sensationalised and exaggerated but the point made is largely correct:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25096386 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25096982

- The technology that finally makes it to market may not be CRISPR at all. With the announcement two days ago by Deepmind, the field of proteomics, and by proxy biology, has been fundamentally changed. The impact to computational biology is akin to ImageNet overshadowing the Lisp/Prolog based expert systems, and their successors' decision trees. History has been written. The repercussions of that blog post is greater for humanity than the moon landing. You often see on HN people complaining how top minds and talent are now working on better ads systems and recognising cat photos instead of real hard tech. The cat photo recognition people just wrote their names in the biology textbooks of the future. Silicon valley loves anti-aging research. That Deep Mind blog post alone possibly added decades to our lifespan than any past effort by Aubrey De Grey et al. or the Methuselah Foundation. Biotech startups might actually be profitable now (hahaha)

You are correct in understanding that the Gates foundation should clarify their timelines. I am not sure why you have been downvoted for this. The economic and health impacts of malaria versus sickle cell diseases ought to be decided by the individual. If the person has no plans to immigrate and if his or her country is stuck in a perpetual resource trap with no ability to combat malaria, then the cure (eradicating sickle cell anemia) may be more harmful than beneficial.

Only if it is a state owned (diplomatic) device. Without diplomatic protection, you can be can be charged with, depending on jurisdiction and circumstance, anything from evidence tampering, obstruction of justice, to contempt of court. Technical hacks to human problems are only viable when you are shielded by sovereignty.

As a bioinformatician, you ought to be ashamed of yourself for that comment. Is your grasp of biology truly that poor? The sheer gall of that comment. This is a forum of experts at building web apps and premature optimization. The average reader here knows next to nothing about genetics and cell biology. Spreading incorrect information about biology is contributing to disinformation and fake news.

But is using legal mechanisms to reduce a competitor's advantage (where the competitor licenses your product) considered to be antitrust? In the internet explorer case one of the major disputes was whether Microsoft manipulated its API to favour explorer versus other software.

Does Microsoft have to follow its own EULA? Will it be an antitrust violation if they don't?