It's a building full of computers.
Not the prettiest thing, but also not the devil's own workshop either.
Oh but it steals the water!...How?
Oh but it hikes up our electric bill!...No more than any other industrial user would.
Oh but it invites children into its gingerbread house!...That almost makes more sense than the other stuff they're saying...about a building full of computers.
Instead of copy-pasting a postdoc or grad student's verbiage as her own she cut out the middleman and cheated all by herself.
Much better in my opinion than copying off of someone else's cheating and claiming it as your own. We're not animals after all.
An incident comes to mind from about a decade and a half ago when I was in grad school and our research group was collaborating with a university on the wrong side of the planet.
One of their postdocs submitted a progress report that was almost completely copy-pasted from emails and powerpoints we had sent his way and claimed it as his own analysis. SOP over there if you pay attention to the way they write and present at conferences. Lots of focus on perfecting the form. Original work...not so much.
OK, off topic, but how do you display videos to somebody inside an MRI scanner? The magnetic / EMF forces those machines generate are pretty titanic, and any piece of metal gets sucked into the center of it.
Assuming it is installed inside somehow, you can avoid the projectile risk by not using any ferrous metal in its construction. Non-ferrous metals (e.g. dental fillings) aren't a problem in an MRI, though you may feel the electrical eddy currents induced by the magnetic fields. For something like an LCD panel, you'd probably want to shield the ever-living crap out of it to minimize problems, and I'm not even certain that it is feasible for that reason, but that's different from the LCD panel physically flying off the mount.
as evil is almost always necessary when the stated goal of your business is to maximize shareholder value at all costs
Don't interpret this as me having an opinion on this specific article (I don't), but that's a gross misrepresentation of what the law requires. As someone running a business, you *do* have a fiduciary duty to the stockholders, but that's not the same thing as requiring you to maximize shareholder value at all costs. Doing what is best for the company and the shareholders does not strictly mean more dollars.
For example, if a company had a choice whether to make a drone that would make a lot of money by selling to militaries, but would be used to annihilate the shareholders, no rational person would claim that the fiduciary duty requires them to build the drone.
More broadly, companies have a responsibility to behave ethically, for two reasons:
In other words, behaving unethically is how companies find themselves massively regulated in ways that negatively impact long-term profits. Every antitrust suit is an example of this, as the only reason those laws exist is because some company previously behaved unethically.
There are definitely use cases for which it isn't needed. But that doesn't cover everything. There will ALWAYS be use cases that would require (or at least benefit from) higher connection bandwidth...and speed can often substitute nicely.
Well, the only better advice is "Don't put your master copy on the internet" and "Always have backups that you've checked".
That's clearly wrong, as there currently exist (very niche) applications for entanglement. I have strong doubts as to it's wide application, as the conditions for keeping it extant are so severe, but few and niche applications isn't the same as unimportant.
FWIW, ISTM that this might have application to quantum key exchange, I just don't know enough to say yes or no.
The older people get, the more set in their ways they become, and the less they like change. So basically, people become more conservative as they age, and less tolerant of things they don't understand. They also accumulate more wealth and favor keeping more of it (fiscal conservatism). And so on. This is generally a well-understood phenomenon.
Anyone who was not a liberal at 20 years of age had no heart, while anyone who was still a liberal at 40 had no head.
- Winston Churchill (among others)
To be fair, back then, 40 was old. But yes, you get my point.
When companies throw around terms like "cities and towns" for drone logistics, they are usually talking about sprawling suburban developments with neat, wide-open lawns, not dense urban cores.
Well, yeah, but those are still cities. Almost twice as many people live in parts of cities that are not "dense urban cores".
And the dense areas involve apartment complexes with hundreds or thousands of units and interior halls, so they're not delivering one package to the building; they're delivering a hundred. It wouldn't make sense to send drones for that.
But if you can handle the suburban sprawl with drones, that's a huge logistics win, because that's where all the time is spent — not by somebody going to an urban-core building and dropping a hundred packages in the mail room, but by somebody going to a hundred individual houses and dropping off a hundred packages one at a time.
I don't think that's correct? Possibly I'm misreading this, but it looks like the study involved giving two things, both the Keytruda, and a separate personalized vaccine.
You're not misreading it. It is individualized. Different cancers express different antigens, and the mRNA vaccine needs to construct something that expresses those same antigens to train the immune system to attack them.
The nice thing about mRNA, is that it is potentially relatively cheap to synthesize mRNA strands and replicate them. It won't be hundreds of dollars, but it won't be millions, either. Right now, I think it's hundreds of thousands per patient, but that will go down over time as they streamline the process of taking a sample of the tumor and determining an mRNA gene sequence that matches said cancer. And economies of scale on the equipment will also probably help.
It may also be the case that it becomes less individualized over time. At some point, we might reach the point where they have a bunch of pre-sequenced antigens that are all ready to go, and someone just keys in a list of antigens, and a piece of software spits out the mRNA sequence. At that point, it is still individualized, but with a much, much more streamlined process for generating it.
Note that I don't work in this field, so take all of this as the opinion of an educated layperson observer.
X is bad for our democracy because it's controlled by money - money can purchase access to eyeballs through "promoted" Tweets (or whatever they call them now), and money is the basis of the design of X's algorithm (well, that and Musk's ego). So when the oligarchs, massive corporations, and egomaniacs control the information that people see, it quickly destroys democracy and becomes unhealthy for all of us.
And by that, you mean X is bad for our democracy because it is a for-profit corporation. Free speech and corporate fiscal sponsorship of that speech have been at odds since time immemorial. The problem is that the corporate sponsorship seems to be winning and the free speech seems to be losing, drowned out by the voices of those who have more money, more bots, etc.
Of course it serves more ragebait for Democrats and probably a lot of Republican socialists, too. Most of X is going to be considered ragebait for them. I mean they are going to hate that people are practicing with and enjoying firearms.
About 20% of Democrats own firearms. So no, they won't. But implying that Democrats are going to be up in arms because they're somehow so fragile that the idea of people using firearms would cause them crippling pain is rage baiting. Please stop.
They are going to hate to hear Libertarians tell the truth about COVID.
They are going to hear people who have not actually read any of the scientific papers tell what a bunch of people pushing an agenda on YouTube claim is the truth about COVID. FTFY.
They are going to hate to hear about the true source of Inflation (Government).
Does anyone actually disagree with that?
They are going to hate to see folks be told about migrant crisis in Europe and about the ICE sending migrants in the US packing.
What migrant crisis? You mean that immigrants initially may cost more than they contribute, but in the long term, contribute more than they cost? This is just an economics lesson and has zero to do with ICE rounding people up who are legally allowed to be here and who have harmed no one, terminating their right to be here, and deporting them, often to countries where they are then immediately imprisoned or killed, or to countries where they don't speak the language, or other fundamental human rights abuses. This has zero to do with the upsurge in underage pregnancies occurring in ICE detention because of illegally unsafe conditions. This has zero to do with deaths occurring in ICE detention because of illegally denying prisoners access to adequate medical care. And so on.
What you're missing is that the left doesn't object to deporting dangerous people. The left doesn't even object to deporting people en masse so long as they are granted their constitutional right to a fair hearing and due process. What the left objects to are gestapo tactics, illegally rounding college students on valid student visas in the middle of the night and deporting them on a bench warrant obtained under false pretense, locking people in cages at density that exceeds what any sane person would consider humane treatment, illegal discharge of firearms resulting in death of unarmed civilians, and any number of other criminal acts committed by ICE in their war on non-white people.
If you want to change policy, change policy. But change it above the board, through actions by Congress, and make those changes explicitly non-retroactive. Don't treat people like garbage. If you do that, the left won't have a problem with you. They might disagree with you, but they will not be offended by you. What offends the left is when the right shows disrespect and contempt for them. And they should be offended by that, because not respecting others is per se offensive.
They are going to really dislike when they see how little respect anyone has for "trans" anything and how much of a joke they consider it.
They're going to dislike it because disrespecting people is a sin. They might not use the word "sin", but the moral argument is the same.
They don't want folks learning that the last 26 years we've had more H1B visas than jobs created in IT in the USA.
Do you think H1-B reduction is a left-right thing? It isn't. It's a corporate-sponsored-politicians versus everyone else thing. The voters on the left don't like H1-Bs, either. They just dislike them for different reasons than the right does. The right dislikes H1-Bs because they bring in more immigrants. The left dislikes H1-Bs because they trap immigrants in jobs and make transferring hard, which makes it possible for companies to mistreat them, not pay them a fair wage, etc. The only people who like them are the ones who are in the pockets of the companies that take advantage of them as a cost-reduction tool.
They are going to hate the anti-communism sentiments. The anti-war vibe will piss off both sets of partisans who have their pet wars. The pro-drug attitudes will also cause Republican head-explosions.
Not many people in the U.S. like communism. The problem comes from folks on the right painting everything they don't like as communist, and from painting socialism with the same brush. They are not the same. Socialism is a spectrum, with the moderate end wanting things like guaranteed medical care, K-12 schooling, TVA, police and fire protection, etc. and the extreme end wanting governments to buy all the big companies and give the money back to the people.
A lot of folks on the right paint even the moderate end as communism, which is an attitude that's far-removed from any reasoned analysis of objective reality. And they do this because blowhard politicians use the word "communism" as a shibboleth/dog whistle, along with words like "woke", "DEI", etc., deliberately distorting the meaning of words to score cheap political points. It's not the positions the right takes that offend the left. It is the massively distorted caricatures of the left's positions that the right has to use to scare people into voting for them.
There honestly isn't much there for them. I mean it's mostly just the truth about what's really going on. I'm sure they are going to hate that. I've gotta say, fuck the both of them and I'm super glad they're mad. Truth is treason in an empire of lies.
I haven't seen a whole lot of truth coming out of X. I've mostly seen a lot of people who think they're speaking the truth, whose entire premise could be torn down by a mountain of studies proving conclusively that they're wrong, were it not for the fact that the people arguing the other side are also arguing from ignorance. To be fair, this pretty much describes political discussions on the Internet in general, not just X.
Yes, to expand on your point - just looking at demographics the Democrats tend to skew younger and the Republicans tend to skew older.
This is kind of the nature of things. The older people get, the more set in their ways they become, and the less they like change. So basically, people become more conservative as they age, and less tolerant of things they don't understand. They also accumulate more wealth and favor keeping more of it (fiscal conservatism). And so on. This is generally a well-understood phenomenon.
Emotional maturity tends to skew older as well, so it offers two possibilities:
1) The results would be the same based on age, not politicial affiliation.
If you mean that ragebait baits younger people more, you're probably correct. Older people at some point realize that they're not going to change anyone's opinion when it is so thoroughly unhinged in its presentation, because that means they aren't presenting an opinion because of careful thought, but rather because of conditioning. So it's usually a waste of time to reply at all.
2) People with less maturity tend to want echo chambers, those with emotional control can more easily engage with challenging opinions.
IMO, rage baiting and echo chambers are basically two sides of the same coin. It's either deliberately provoking them to condition them to attack anything that disagrees with their opinions or it is regurgitating opinions. If anything, rage baiting is the fire that tests the echo chamber. It fuels it. It creates it.
I'm okay with engaging with challenging opinions. This is not the same thing as rage baiting. A challenging opinion requires actually giving reasons for that opinion, supporting evidence, etc. Rage baiting is assuming the contrary without supporting evidence, acting as though everyone knows that it is true, and accusing people of being stupid if they disagree. The two have very little in common. It's the difference between arguing with an intellectual and arguing with a deliberate troll. One can change opinions, or at least refine them. The other is just a bunch of talking heads shouting at each other.
"Protozoa are small, and bacteria are small, but viruses are smaller than the both put together."
