technotony

Try out high fidelity VR... they've nailed it already: https://highfidelity.com

Sure, in the sort run lots of pain from this. However maybe in the long run brexit will be amazing for britain. The UK has a highly educated, creative, dynamic work force with strong anglo saxon work ethic. This is the country that invented industrialization and modern democratic governance. We stand at the dawn of a new era of technological shifts that are going to require radically different political/economic systems - I would not bet against the UK being the place that invents those systems now it's free from the shackles of the EU. Note I voted remain but the short term economic arguments don't carry much weight to me, all we know is that we don't know as there is so much uncertainty here.

I've often wondered if there's a similarity in personality between people exploring technology today and explorers of old. This article seems to suggest a link, and that makes sense to me: as the world has flattened and become global there's less interest in exploring geographically and the frontiers of human life are increasingly technological. Kevin Kelly seems to have modeled that transition perfectly.

Of course it is. The whole site is made by them[1]. Clever marketing move!

[1] YCDB is made in San Francisco by the team at Snappr, which is a YC company (W17). Why? Because we love YC companies and discovering new ones! Edited by Matt Schiller.

Presumably that could be caused by the intensity of the fire? I understand if you really do regularly burn the forests the fires become fast and light skipping the undergrowth rather than these intense conflagrations we see today?

I'm thinking of moving to NYC from San Francisco, while I bootstrap a new venture. It seems it should be cheaper but still have access to peer networks/potential hires and investors for when the time comes. Do you think that's right?

What's the threshold you think you need to earn for it not to be brutal?

They are not more advanced technologically, this is being further advanced culturally/ethically/regulatory.

Of course those advances could over time lead to a technological advantage. For instance if they find a way to improve intelligence that could be a runaway advantage.

IF all the jobs in field X are in locations a,b,c and you can't move there then yes seems like it wouldn't be smart to study field X in order to get a job unless you see a future where locations with that job are going to change to somewhere you can go.

You mean like this? https://www.amazon.com/Allwood-Eagle-Point-1108-Cabin/dp/B00...

We can do better than MRI and VR HUD's. There's already active research based on this which is working[1]. That's the basis for Neurolink's R&D too[2] [1]https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/wireless-brain-im... [2]https://www.neuralink.com/

Personally I think the assumption that science has figured it out is going to turn out to be nonsense. Science thought that in the nineteenth century right before discovery of general relativity and quantum mechanics.

Personally until we've figured out things like consiousness and dark matter/inflation etc I think the null hypothesis should be that there is unexplained stuff happening and thus it's likely advanced civilizations use something other than electromagnetic waves, just like we don't use smoke signals or fire beacons much for communication anymore.

That worked better when companies IPO'ed earlier. Now most of those gains get taken by private capital. If the equivalent of the PC now is AR/VR/XR or say synthetic biology I can't invest in that without connections and already having that retirement money.

Aditya, he put his email address in the posting I would contact him there rather than leaving this message here. I also wouldn't advise applying for a post by asking if you are qualified, it's better to send a message explaining why you think you are qualified. When I get messages asking if someone is qualified I immediately ignore them because either they aren't going to be qualified or they haven't even done the research to figure it out themselves which is a big red flag.

> Whereas there are techniques for bringing on self-forgiveness that are already available, though not yet accepted in the mainstream.

Could you comment on what those are?

The counter argument to your basement geneticist terrorist is that you shouldn't suppress that technology, you should in fact distribute it as widely and freely as possible and as early as possible. This allows good intentioned actors to understand and learn about the capabilities and develop defenses such that it gets harder and harder to create the wipe-out-90% of people weapon because you have higher barriers to overcome for it to be effective.

Recruitment for his foundation?

Who knows how much this is even costing him. It's pretty good PR for the publishing company and will probably generate sales from non-graduates. Could just be a genius marketing move which benefits brand Gates and the publisher.

I don't think the average reader has a problem comprehending what you wrote, they just don't define better the way that you do (ie they don't include unborn babies lives as equally valuable until a certain age in the womb). Your core point that given any set of facts you can define a value system such that it's improving is true, but that's not how most people define their value system.

That chart is interesting. Realistically how likely is it that digital spend is going to double in the next five years? Is the consumer economy big enough to justify that without taking share from other media (presumably there are other advertising media)? If (when?) it does stop that's going to have a pretty big impact on google/facebook's valuations and growth rates.

A challenge is that with this debate (say organic vs GMO) both sides have a lot at stake financially and you can make this argument either way. How then should one decide what to trust and read?

The network effect for google comes from it's relationships with users and advertizers. This is why Microsoft couldn't overtake them despite spending so much on bing.

I think you are British, that's the polite form in the UK where I come from. In the USA if you try this it's pretty common for people to say yes they would like it. Different culture!

Producing the egg cells from pluripotent stem cells, then figuring out any immune response from growing them in the system described in this article.

This has several big implications:

1. Women will soon not need to go through the painful (and expensive) process of freezing eggs. (soon being when this is shown to be safe and equivalent to existing eggs). This will enable older women to have kids and solve some reproductive issues.

2. This will lead to a massive rise in availability of human eggs for scientific research, accelerating many fields. Lack of availability of eggs (as they get prioritized for other uses) restricts things like embryo research and other genetic analysis of human germline

3. Potentially this could lead to gay couples being able to have genetically descended children (obviously male couples here, but similar work on sperm is being done that could potentially enable lesbian couples to have kids too). This can be done as skin cells can be turned into pluripotent stem cells, and then maybe into the eggs (still some missing pieces in this process)

The issue with this system is how the pools are created. Most people use a work pool, leaving those outside it in a lower quality pool. I'd be fine with it if the risk was spread across everyone, not if it's just certain types of employees.

My view is that if the individual mandate is eliminated then other insurers will come into the market with cheaper plans that don't include everything (Eg mental health) so health costs for healthy self-employed folks will go down. The thing I've always hated about Obamacare was how healthy self employed folks are subsiding the unhealthy people, this happens because most people in their 20's or 30s are covered by work plans which have a better risk pool.

Growth rate... which he implies is large.

> So basically this becomes viable with increased ticket prices or self-driving busses. The technology isn't quite there yet for the latter

No, but it will get there so proving the business model/market demand now then buying the tech when it's ready might be worth a vc investing in.

I do hear this as a common complaint, but there's an adapter for this so I'm not sure what the big deal is? http://www.trustedreviews.com/news/google-pixel-2-headphone-...

For facebook this isn't and never was about VR, it's always been about AR. Zuckerburg has talked about how the problems that have to be solved with VR (head tracking, frame rate etc) are the problems that have to be solved with AR before it can fully take off. Facebook was late on mobile, they aren't going to be late on AR so don't expect them to stop investing in Oculus anytime soon.