adenadel

Agreed, I went in September (we also just wandered into the separate natural history museum in Florence and enjoyed it). It's amazing how beautiful and handcrafted the instruments are. Much more aesthetic than the modern appliance-style instruments used for high-throughput biology (although many hand-built instruments with exposed parts are still cool-looking).

Another thing is that it seems you are sampling with replacement. I placed a circle in a rural area (where I grew up) and in one round I got the same street for 3/5 of the selections (and there were 10+ streets within the radius).

People have called Tacoma Tacompton for a long time. Tacoma has come a long way over the last couple decades and is now one of the fastest moving real estate markets in the country.

For those who have never heard of the Hilltop shootout:

https://www.military.com/history/time-army-rangers-got-gunfi...

In case anyone is interested, you can get 3x or 4x on YouTube by opening the console and using this one-liner

document.getElementsByTagName("video")[0].playbackRate = 3

Can someone explain to me why this should be an entirely new company (subsidiary) rather than folding DeepMind's capabilities into Verily and Calico? Are these different groups siloed from one another within Google?

If you're not a customer of a bank and you come to cash a check (that isn't drawn on that bank) then you are going to pay a fee (if they will even cash it). I assume check cashing businesses charge a similar fee.

It would be great in principle if the USPS could cash checks for free, but they are also taking on the risk of the check being bad.

Someone who knows the Sunday traffic on Highway 2, I assume.

I feel bad too. To me it seems like he was hurt by his firing and wanted to retain no connection to the company.

Presumably someone could take other positions to hedge away all of the other holdings in the fund so that (to a first order approximation) their only exposure is SpaceX, right?

(I only know the basics of investing)

Hm, I'm not so sure that just because the definition of a bijection is technical that it is not intuitive.

I'll start an enumeration of the rationals

1 1/3

2 1/4

3 1/5

...

If you can prove that you can do this, is that really so non-colloquial? It is certainly what we mean by "as many" for all finite sets, so what is wrong with doing this for infinitely many sets?

In fact, almost all numbers are transcendental (algebraic numbers have measure zero).

This is not true. The usual calculus that people learn (and usually learn with rigor in a real analysis course) does not touch infinitesimals.

The approach via infinitesimals is even called "nonstandard analysis".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonstandard_analysis

I am certainly not an expert on this, but my guess is that there will be be challenges to doing calculus since you won't have the standard foundational properties of the reals (like the least upper bound property). That being said, it looks like mathematicians have investigated this.[0]

0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computable_analysis

Incognito works for me

It basically opens the repo in VS Code in the browser. I wasn't able to run a Julia file in the repo I opened though.

This is just not true for the vast majority of the world. Not everyone is American and in tech.

Yes, but this is a huge part of the history of the Olympics. The Dream Team in 1992, athletes who worked for their governments (and just trained full-time) in the 70s, athletes living an impoverished life for years while chasing their Olympic dreams (see Steve Prefontaine working as a bartender).

Also try lichess, it's free and open source.

30X is considered standard for germline whole genome sequencing and higher coverage is typically used for detecting somatic variation. That being said, all detection is statistical and there are regions of the genome that are inherently hard to sequence.

I get your point, but your timeline is pretty far off. The first human gene therapy happened in 1990 so DNA has been a thing for awhile.

For martingales (stochastic processes whose expected value given the current value is the current value) there is no strategy that does better (on average) than the (expected) initial value (Doob's optional stopping theorem).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optional_stopping_theorem

It might be if the Gates Foundation had funded the study.

https://bmcmedicine.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s1291...

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make, but the Wellcome Trust is a large organization with an endowment worth tens of billions of dollars and a variety of funding sources. Your link shows a number of moderately sized grants for mostly infectious disease projects.