There are corrections to gravity that include the current size of the Universe as s term that gives extremely small differences in calculations but explains most observations.

It has a certain allure from an Information Theory perspective and is extremely parsimonious in ask.

But funding is for finding wimps and axons and evidence of mysteries that use the old equations so you are called crazy if your simple theory threatens that gravy train.

Some people say useful physics is too dangerous to fund and we're better off wasting time and money.

Twenty years ago Dark Energy seemed like a good idea to me. So did Supersymmetry. Most new ideas that can be tested and used or disproved probably should be. That LHC found no Supersymmetric pairs is a good thing.

Apologies to the original.

https://eev.ee/blog/2012/04/09...

According to a report I heard yesterday Talarico has 50x the cash of Paxton and it's the Bush politicial machine that is funding him.

The situation was similar in the primary but the base favored Paxton over Cornin by such a huge margin that the spend didn't matter.

The dual state people hate Paxton so much they have been after him for years.

It's populists vs. oligarchs in most races where party affiliation is a distant second to the money machine.

Since Trump ran on populism but then did a 180 with Judas knives out for his "former supporters" the odds of any Republican getting elected anywhere but an R+20 are extremely thin regardless of warchest.

DC's interference in free elections is gross but it probably won't matter on Election Day.

Impeachments of officials over FCC actions are quite likely at this point.

"You're folding it wrong," obviously.

Perhaps Tim Apple had the sense to get out ahead of this.

Happy to be proven wrong! That would be amazing engineering and might actually allow the rollable Global to come to fruition.

But since everybody who has claimed to have perfected the engineering hasn't actually done so one should be cautious on such investments.

Biochemist here. I've done genomics, I've done proteomics, I have customers in diagnostic medicine currently. My PhD was on protein-protein interactions, which is a big part of how our immune system works.

A lot of people are quick to jump on the fact that the Theranos system didn't work, and many others claim that it was impossible and never could have worked. While indeed their system didn't work, that doesn't at all disqualify the principle.

For one case study of how far we've come in recent times I point to genomics. The first draft of the human genome took more than a decade start to finish and cost over $1B. Now we can sequence full human genomes on a commercial scale for $500 or less, and it's done in less than a week with far better resolution than the first draft.

From genomics we went to proteomics; classifying proteins in a organism instead of just genes. This tells us more about what cells are doing (although transcriptomics can bridge the gap to a certain extent). Proteins are often better disease markers than genes as well for a similar reason. When proteomics started getting off the ground we were cataloging proteins from large amounts of cellular extract. Now we can catalog and in some cases quantify proteins from individual cells. We can also use protein staining and imaging mass spec to show which cells from a biopsy are expressing aberrant proteins (again as disease markers); we've reached a point where we can do this in real time on live tissue.

One of the biggest faults in the Theranos system was in the fact that blood is not the best serum for disease markers. Yes there are markers in there but not everything goes in there, and not always in quantities that are easy to observe. Blood is great because of how much is in there but lots is missed there as well.

I think you two are both correct here. The company was mostly funded by very wealthy investors, those folks lost money and are getting their pounds of flesh back by way of seeing her rot in jail. As you point out there were also actual patients who had tests ran (uncertain now what tests, where, by whom) and received crap results; those people of course are getting nothing back because they don't have enough money to be considered worth anything in the courts - even if they died as a result.

You're not wrong that the democrats are run by a bunch of cowards. They propose a plan, and reliably fold on it as soon as the MAGA party comes up with a (not at all) clever insult that invariably tears the plan down to a single word bite. The democrats do have ideas, they just have no spine to actually push them through.

Consent is the difference between it and lovemaking.

A legitimate government listens to 90% of its citizens when they agree on an issue. Delegated powers and such.

Airbags, crumple zones.

"Modern cars cause cancer" coming next year.

Pretty sure the announcements for ChatGPT 3, 3.5, 4, 5 all "hinted at AGI".

I'll believe it when suddenly the power and memory costs fall by 1000x after that release.

(I do believe this is achievable)

... of these. Ethernet and wifi are terrible interconnects so perhaps they have developed a clever dispatch scheme below the headlines.

Too bad home power bills are up 70% in some locales.

Still, nVidia is smart to get that many people are rejecting enemy-hosted models.

"The best thing about AI is we've finally developed a capable predator for the Human Race". -- some techbro next year

Tim could have made 1987 real by 2022.

https://youtu.be/HGYFEI6uLy0

He made various sizes of Job's last product instead. :shrug:

There are varying interpretations of "shareholder duty" and rent seeking isn't the only valid one.

Kudos for a decent northbridge in the M series, I guess.

The elder half of the AARP membership may get a biased view of the AI bubble.

Other than that this should have zero relevance to anybody.

Oh noes.

While they're currently only applying this to people with extreme cholesterol problems, there's no reason the same treatment wouldn't work for anyone on statins. They use different dosages to impact a different percentage of the liver cells to adjust cholesterol levels, essentially introducing a mutation found in a small percentage of the population where a particular gene is inactive. For people with more manageable cholesterol levels, they would presumably just need a lower dosage to get levels below that where medication is required.

So for now, this will likely be only used in extreme cases, but over time, this could be an alternative to statins just like lasik is an alternative to glasses.

I would love to stop taking my statins, and I'm sure many other people would also opt for something like this. Once they get more experience in the more extreme cases, there's every reason to believe they'll open it up for wider usage. Apparently between 50% and 65% of people fail to take their statins consistently for various reasons, so this could be much more effective and reducing heart disease.