notlob

Titles can be contextual. I do not refer to myself (a PhD) as a doctor in a hospital because others could incorrectly think I was a physician. This problem is especially vexing for nurses with PhDs.

Why would that be informative? It doesn’t tell you your protein expression levels nor effective enzymatic activity.

That would actually be the monostable ZF shifter used in some FCA cars.

> The Toyota "unintended acceleration" bug revealed some tremendously poor quality software.

Did Toyota ever recall the affected ETCs?

It isn’t a great idea. I used to do it (See ID), but it is actually not compliant with the credit card agreement. The post office by me refused to accept cards marked like that.

N.B., the MISRA guidelines for C were revised in 2012. This critique is directed at an older publication.

As a confound, your original comment (at present that is) defaults to a collapsed view.

A bulb was also a neat hack used in the 200A, the first product made by a small and relatively obscure garage startup in Palo Alto: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/HP200A

> not to mention that it only works on 'vetted' stretches of road.

To be specific GM is following the NHTSA guidelines for autonomous vehicles, which consider Operational Design Domains in the design process.

> I haven't been government-cleared for anything (as a matter of principle I won't do work for the federal government), but I've been background-checked repeatedly, including by major exchanges, and never once had a problem.

I don't understand what this contributes. I guess it's great that won't work for the feds but that's hardly a generalizable position. Are you suggesting that passing the background check for a major exchange informs on the outcome of a public trust clearance or a professional license? Criminal background check portion perhaps, but not character and fitness—I would SWAG you'd need to correct your report before you could proceed.

> I'd like you tell me more about how you think I've been lucky with respect to my disregard for my credit score. I don't think I have.

Your tl;dr sums it up, your strategy works for you, but how it at generalizable even for a limited definition for “tech workers”? Partly I think you’re neglecting the advantage in being established in life before the Great Recession, which is part of why I say you are remarkably lucky. Does your strategy work for the younger cohort who would purchase a home post-2008? Does your strategy help for people who experience a significant adverse life event like divorce or a natural disaster?

That part of your "dispute resolution strategy" is to "ignore mistakes and disputes forever" and live unimpeded, when there are so many who could not do the same (myself included, it'd be a career-ender), leaves me slack-jawed with amazement. My congratulations to you, but I hope you see that few can get away with that.

> Every landlord I've rented from has pulled my credit.

There is also a separate tenant screening for real estate that, at least for me, seems to be more reliable as an indicator for trust than the financial credit report. It is possible your landlords are doing the same? Perhaps that’s what you mean by reference checks?

> It's more than likely that if I was in a different career, and particularly if that career was in a lower-paying sector where workers have less leverage, my credit score would be a real concern in finding a job.

I’d point out poor credit is also problematic in high-paying professional fields, e.g. in a sector requiring clearance, or perhaps in a sector requiring licensure. As I understand it even public trust clearance would be problematic with poor credit.

It’s great your strategy has worked out well for you, but it seems a required part of your strategy is to be remarkably lucky.

My 80s diesel Benz is barely broken in at 249k miles. It all depends on the car.

Ironically, more modern cars will probably not last as long! I can rebuild just about anything on this car, electronics included (most complicated part is perhaps a common opamp). On modern cars, as soon as the advanced ICs (say an ECU) are NLA you’re SOL.

I’ve long wondered if people who extensively use advanced assist systems will see deterioration in manual driving aptitude, and if that deterioration will be restricted to the operating domain for the assist systems or be more general.

> Many of the current cars are 100% drive by wire (ECU/power brakes/electric power steering), but that doesn't mean anything.

Electric power assisted steering. Few cars on the road currently are correctly termed steer-by-wire. Actually, only the properly-optioned Infiniti Q50 comes to mind.

What does the typical circuit for a city street light pole look like, i.e., what voltage is it, what wire gauge, etc.?

Ondansetron is associated with long QT. The FDA does not like that side effect for OTC meds.

> If I'm not mistaken, he is an engineer, and even a licensed one too, just not licensed in the Oregonian jurisdiction.

You are mistaken: I told you in an earlier reply that the first linked document states he is not licensed to practice in any state.

> In this particular case, the defendant is licensed as an engineer.

The first linked document in the article states that the defendant is not licensed by any state.

Have you considered that the licenses made need not be broad, and that university licenses include milestone requirements to maintain the license?

> will likely hinder the use and development of CRISPR.

What is your thought process leading to that conclusion?

> Why is a temporary monopoly even necessary here? I've written about this before, but every time I see "patents" mentioned anywhere, I find myself thinking "Do we need this system?"

In biotech and medtech no one will invest in your startup, even at the angel level, unless you have a sound IP strategy that includes patents or a very well-considered trade secret plan. The time from discovery to translation and commercialization is long, risky, expensive, and too difficult to predict to permit investment without some sort of period of exclusivity. If someone can clone a product as soon as it is developed and on the market, how could a company recoup development costs?

Berkeley applied for a patent on tennis balls, an application still pending. Harvard/MIT later applied for a patent on yellow tennis balls and paid a fee to accelerate the review of their application. The Harvard/MIT patent was issued first. The recent PTAB trial found that the Berkeley patent application did not interfere with the Harvard/MIT patent, but this does not mean that the Berkeley application will not issue, nor does it mean that one could practice yellow tennis balls (CRISPER/Cas9 in eukaryotes) without licensing both from Berkeley and Harvard/MIT.

As to how Harvard/MIT won, part of the PTAB decision relied on general statements made by one of the Berkeley inventors as to the challenges in dyeing tennis balls yellow (getting the CRISPER/Cas9 system working in eurkaryotes) and so demonstrating that the Harvard/MIT inventors had to made an inventive step. That is a pretty profound and worrying development with respect to academic freedom.