Depends. A 54 nm laser diode can be quite pricey - check DigiKey for current prices. You might be able to find a vendor on AliBaba as well.

(Note to the humor impaired: 54nm is in the X-ray spectrum, narrower than Vacuum UV, and the world's shortest wavelength diode laser tops out at about 270 nm. A 54nm laser is essentially unobtanium outside of a particle accelerator.)

I couldn't get the paywalled paper and the abstract didn't mention the laser, but I strongly suspect that 54nm is the *size* of the diode, and not its wavelength.

Really poor reporting on the part of the journalist.

At one time I was thinking about whether there could have been an intelligent civilization on Earth before humans, and if there were and they wanted to leave some record of their existence, how would they do it?

Assume that the civilization leaves the planet for some reason. They might have died out, but also there might be some compelling reason to just go somewhere else - some reason that we haven't figured out yet.

At any rate...

After about 5 million years there would be virtually no trace of their existence anywhere on Earth. Taking our own civilization and putting artifacts in various places (ocean floor, Mount Rushmore, Chernobyl) there's no place that isn't completely scrubbed flat or ground down into sand or subducted into the magma. For all the dinosaurs that ever existed we only have a tiny, tiny fraction of bones. Today, the fraction of human bones compared to all the animal bones in the world is also tiny, so 5 million years from now how would intelligent Bonobos know we existed?

The moon's surface is a good solution, but it gets blasted by meteors a lot and anything we put there could get covered by rubble.

It might be interesting to look at the Lagrange points, L4 and L5 particularly. These already have captured objects, we haven't examined any of them in detail, we have put satellites there for various purposes, so...

Maybe we should send a probe to look in detail at the objects captured by the Lagrange points?

People who do well starting business are low in agreeableness. This means that they tend to not be swayed by the opinions of other people, which is a prerequisite for success in the face of all the people who think it can't be done.

Psychopathy is a separate measure and says that the person doesn't care about other people. Only about 5% of the population has an unusually high score in this trait, and they generally are not very successful. They tend to do well for a short time, but once people figure out that they aren't trustworthy they have to move to a different environment (where people don't know them) and start over.

Mad geniuses tend to be high in openness, which is another completely separate personality measure. High intelligence tends to correlate with openness, but you can be highly intelligent and not very creative - it's the openness that allows you to come up with ideas.

Making an actual product is the domain of conscientiousness which is the actual running of the business, as opposed to the management. People high in conscientiousness are detail oriented and make sure everything works right.

And finally, business success is subject to The Matthew Effect, which is where your chances of success are proportional to the number of attempts you have made. About 80% (actual number, not made up) of first businesses fail, while only 40% of 2nd businesses fail, and the number goes down with each attempt. In effect, every time you make an attempt you are learning more about how to run a successful business.

(Consider: There's a similar effect with writing. Submitting your first novel you have to learn all about agents, publishers, submission rules, deadlines, and how to write popular prose. After 5 attempts all of the mechanism is familiar and you've had 5 attempts with feedback you can use to improve your writing. Stephen King notes that he had 140 rejections before he got his *first* article published. Not his first book, his first article.)

There's a fair bit of information about what it takes to create a successful business, just having "an idea" doesn't work by itself, you also need to be really lucky and have the proper skills available. So for the Peter Thiel thing, just throwing money at people with good ideas will probably not be very productive.

What would work much better is putting together a proper mix of people, one of which has a good idea, along with a mentor who can guide the group in matters of business to the point where it can continue on its own.

I note historically that several attemps of "throw money at inventors" thing has been tried in the past, with similar results. "Shark Tank" and "Project Green Light" come to mind.

Flamebait and misleading.

Jordan Peterson is not an MD, but the person he's interviewing definitely is, which is why I posted that specific interview.

The previous responder mentioned some of the mechanisms of fasting regarding cancer, so you have to allow that there is at least some scientific basis for the practice.

And finally: sick evil person? You can disagree with Jordan Peterson on his philosophy, but calling him evil is derangement on the part of the poster.

Don't pay any attention to the previous post, it should NOT have been modded up, and getting mod points for falsely removing hope like that is despicable.

If you want to try for a Hail Mary you might consider fasting, as outlined in a recent Jordan Peterson video.

Another Hail Mary might be the work of Paul Stamets, who claims that a mushroom extract cured his mother of cancer. (I've got a bottle of these, they give me headaches, he had to stop mentioning which ones cured his mother's cancer, but if you carefully go through his older videos you can piece together the ones he used and purchase them online at his web site IIRC.)

Do your own research and note that I'm not responsible for anything you do.

Good luck, and if any of these help please let us know.

The mechanism is suspected to be long-term and low level inflammation. That's not generally accepted yet, but at the same time there's no conclusive mechanism for dementia, so the inflammation explanation seems reasonable. Currently.

The problem with your scenario is that it requires people to spend 8 hours inside the home, as opposed to 2 hours commute and 8 hours in an office.

The home might have carpets on which water was spilled a long time ago, and growing mold or bacteria. Bacteria of a certain type that I can't remember ATM, but mold grows in an alkali environment and bacteria grow in acidic, and when one starts it modifies the environment to promote it's own growth.

Also the home might have drywall and paint with anti-fungal chemicals, which prevent fungus except for the types that have evolved resistance to the chemicals, but the fungus sees the chemicals as an attack and generates more spores in response.

Also wooden timbers/joists that get condensation moisture leading to the growth of mold or bacteria.

Also the home might have pets, with associated hair and dander. Also kids, with associated germs and stuff brought in on their clothes.

Also the home owner might not be very conscientious about replacing the furnace filter.

Also the home might be winterized against the cold, and not let in much outside air.

So in summary, the home is considered on average a worse polluting environment than most office buildings. Something like 1 out of 3 home buildings have been tested positive for low level inflammation pollutants of the bacteria and mold types.

You can get your home tested - it involves donning a white glove and passing it over a few surfaces in your house, then sending it out to a lab for analysis.

In this hypothesis, decades of living in an affected home causes low-level inflammation, which results in all sorts of problems, including dementia.

So yes, outside air pollution is a problem, but the pollution in the home is usually much higher and experienced for a much longer time. Office buildings are also worse than outside pollution, but have generally less pollution than the typical home.

And of course, individual examples might be on the extreme in any of the measures, both good and bad.

Easy.

Edit a text file using emacs, put 1 task per line in order. Sub-tasks go underneath the umbrella task and indented by 1 tab (4 spaces works well). Insert "*** DONE ***" at the beginning of each completed task line.

You wanted a *team* based task list?

Easy.

Generate a spreadsheet on slack. put 1 task per line in order...

What other functionality did you need?

Gah! I have to agree. I did the canonical A/B test with Google and DuckDuckGo, and found that there's no good solution.

I had heard that Google was getting pretty bad, so switched to DuckDuckGo. I found that google's search was much better for technical things, if you ask a direct technical question on google you'll be sent to StackExchange or Reddit or Quora or somewhere with a direct answer. Not as much with DuckDuckGo. I kept using DuckDuckGo but frequently re-searching on Google for technical questions, and that was annoying so after about a year I switched back to Google.

And now google is so awful that I'm thinking of switching back. I sometimes have to go down about 2 pages before any reasonable links come up. Search for "$some-equipment user manual" and find dozens of links for $some-equipment (not the manual) for sale on ebay, used equipment dealers, AliExpress, and so on.

DuckDuckGo isn't as politically biased as Google, either. Search for "political cartoons" and DuckDuckGo has TownHall.com is the first or 2nd result. Google doesn't even list that site on the first *three pages* (!) of results. Lots of times I've seen completely inflammatory news highlighted on Google, with DuckDuckGo taking a more measured approach.

(Meaning: Both political sides should be available ranked by page-rank, and not arbitrarily slanted by outrage or politics.)

So I don't know where to go for results now. Google is getting so bad that using it is taking up a significant amount of my time trying to wade through the bad results and rephrasing/retrying searches hoping for a better result.

Does anyone know if yahoo still working?

It's all the style to paint the current supreme court as conservative, and list all the really awful decisions they make along with their political leanings. It give us so much outrage and clicks!

In reality, if anyone ever took the trouble to *read* their decisions, they would find that the court makes really well-researched decisions based on the law.

Let's reiterate that point: the court doesn't rule on whether something is *right*, it only rules on whether something is *legal*.

So in the OP, the term "costly and ineffective" is used. Do you want a court to uphold something that's both costly and ineffective? The term *ineffective* is important here. Even if the law can be framed as intending to be a good law, should we still support it if it's ineffective?

And about the legality, the legislature has full power to make laws to correct any decision that the Supreme Court makes. The legislature can even rewrite parts of the constitution, which have to be ratified by the legislatures of the states, but still...the legislature can change anything, up to and including the constitution, and has done so in the past.

And finally, framing the decision as the political leaning of the court is the fundamental attribution error. The article tries to paint the court's decisions on their individual political leanings, and not the legality of the bill in question.

It's far more likely that the examples listed - vaccine mandate and student loan forgiveness - were simply unconstitutional, and not struck down due to political leanings.

Not everything in the sun is the result of political partisanship.

Sometimes, a decision is reached for other reasons.

The implant isn't reading the person's internal monologue, it's trying to interpret the "intention" of the person.

The implant measures the firings of various nerves in the brain. The researchers tell the patient "imagine moving the mouse to the left", the person then visualizes doing that in whatever way they like, and the computer copies down the impulses that are measured.

All the impulses for when the researcher is *not* imagining moving the mouse left are also copied down, and a big neural net tries to figure out correlations that are true for "move mouse left" and not true for every other action.

There's probably also some human training here as well, so that the person can *probably* adjust their thinking patterns in a way that the computer can more easily detect - in the manner of those "alpha wave" devices you can get to train your brain to think in a more alpha-wave manner.

(So for example, if the person discovers that thinking about dogs makes the mouse go left, the person (and not the computer) can "learn" that association for mouse control, and this will eventually become automatic in the person.)

The intended use is, of course, for disabled people to gain some control over a computer, and by extension some control over their lives.

Okay, just to be clear: climate change is an existential threat and we should be doing everything possible to address it, and you're good with punishing Elon Musk because he's right-wing.

And he's stated that his position has never changed, only that the left has moved so far to the left that he's now right of center.

So effectively you're saying that Elon being right wing is more important than everything he's doing to combat climate change.

That's your position - yes?

Interesting framing.

His position was that children did not need to be vaccinated, and forcing the vaccinations led to more deaths than letting the disease take its course among that slice of the population.

Medical professionals disagreed with the CDC conclusions, which is not in itself extraordinary, but then the government suppressed the opinions online.

And note that of course the CDC is absolutely correct in what they did... but also note that everyone here has been receiving a skewed and one-sided version of the facts, because opposing opinion was suppressed by the government.

The whole thing is simply opening the door to the suppression of free speech. Start by declaring certain forms of speech a "special case", then ban those special cases, and then start skiing the slippery slope from there.

Speech is free, and should continue to be so.

There's a direct relation from selling crap to personal harm, I can see how getting crap can harm someone; at the very least it deducts money from the person and gives no value. That's the best case scenario, it can also cause more severe harms. A good example would be those 512GB memory sticks that are the cheap much-smaller-sized sticks with a tricked-out partition table that makes it seem like 512GB, but once you fill up the much-smaller-size it starts to overwrite the beginning of the volume.

There's also a direct relation between posting calls to violence against individuals and direct harm: making someone feel unsafe, ginning up enough outrage against someone to cause an attack, giving people "ideas" about what to do, and so on. In the US it's OK to call for the death penalty for abortion clinic doctors, but it's *not* OK to call for the death of a specific clinic doctor.

Beyond that, I can't see any direct relation between Nazi memes and direct harm. As distasteful as it may seem, letting people with extreme views air their position has several benefits in the direction of making things better, while suppressing their views leads to making things worse. Lots of analysis of this online that I won't bother to review, but for a brief example consider that allowing them to air their views allows others to counter their arguments, while suppressing their views allows them to recruit new members in a vacuum - with no push back.

And even beyond that, the history of free speech shows conclusively that speech deemed offensive is basically a fad, subject to the whims of the public and prone to political ideology. Enough examples of this has happened in the past 8 years that everyone reading this should be able to remember, and consider. In recent years the slightest mention of race, sexual orientation, or certain religions was deemed hate speech, and the completely political statements of a certain politicians was deemed hate speech by many people.

Essentially, hate speech is defined by the court of public opinion, is a moving target, and attempts to suppress it are counterproductive.

So, yeah, EU trying to suppress people saying bad things will not help, will make things worse, and will result in a handful of people getting caught up in the political system over the next decade or so. We'll have lurid reports of someone posting something technical related, getting their lives destroyed by running afoul of this law, and the resultant outrage from hearing the news report.

Completely ass-backwards from what should have happened.

Depends on the model. A Tesla 3 might generate $42,000 of pollution.

You have good days?