gwbas1c
Some of them actively publicize that people with Down's lead happy, healthy, and independent lives, without significant support. (As we see Gabe does in the article.) They generally stay away from the moral debate.
For people who follow the abortion debate in the US, when people say "as long as it's not used for Eugenics," what they really mean is that they are ok with abortion as long as it's not used to abort Down's fetuses.
One of the things I like is the article really gets through the facade into understanding who Gabe really is. It doesn't focus on quirks, and instead humanizes Gabe.
The nameless exec said that to me the last time we met, roughly a week before they were pushed out; precisely for that belief. (And at first I suspected you were the exec.)
And yes, the product that I worked on did have a ~600 ticket deep backlog, and plowing through it wouldn't have made the product better. At the time, the product was in a steady growth phase, where addressing customer pain points was just as important as building features.
Where the exec goofed (by jumping on the mobile bandwagon) was misunderstanding disruption, market needs, and how mobile would effect us. Ultimately, we were a "bolt-on" accessory, and the incumbents in our industry slowly pushed us out until our niche, (which had nothing to do with mobile) was our core differentiating feature.
Basically, the issue was allocation of resources. Too much were put into mobile, not enough into building features where we could compete against the products we were "bolting on to," and not enough into addressing customer pain points. The "friction is good" approach also severely hurt us, because too much time was wasted haggling instead of doing. (I specifically told the exec, the last time we met, it felt like he was running the air conditioner and heater at the same time.)
This exec is making a similar mistake by basically giving a small team unlimited tokens, instead of understanding how other players in the industry tackle these same problems with AI. It's not that their overall idea is bad, it's that they are probably starving the rest of the business on an unproven experiment / poorly chosen risk.
Recently I read about a company (nameless for reasons that will become clear) that was giving a small team unlimited tokens to work on a very ambitious project. (IE, they'll probably spend a few million on tokens.)
Here's the thing: I once worked with the (nameless) exec who was named and interviewed in the article. (And I have a significant amount of respect for this exec.) The problem is, the exec (when I worked with them) significantly misinterpreted the mobile trend and nearly killed the company jumping on the mobile bandwagon. (We had a desktop product that only needed a simple companion mobile app. This was painfully obvious at the time.) This exec is blindly jumping on another bandwagon again, wasting money that might be better spent elsewhere.
Why do I say this? I question if a lot of big AI spenders are really getting value from what they're doing with AI, or is it just for show?
I suspect that on-device AI might drive some of us to upgrade, though. I really don't like that AI requires a network connection (and subscription for non-trivial use.)
Then hide the remote from your TV and only use the remote from your device.
It's a little slow, but for me, it's nice that I can turn on my Switch from the controller and it turns the TV on; or that I can put a disk in my Bluray player and it turns the TV on.
In medicine, sometimes semantics are more important than you think.
For example, a few years ago I removed a rather large 3rd party mathematics library because we were only using it for a single mathematical function that was very easy to replicate.
Remember, 3rd party libraries need to:
1: Be periodically audited to make sure you are in compliance with the license terms, and preferences of your company.
(1.5: This becomes important during an acquisition as someone will always come around doing due diligence.)
2: Be periodically updated (in case of security bugs)
2.5: Be updated on short notice when a security issue is revealed.
In the case of the mathematics library, replacing it with roughly 20 lines of code and 100 lines of tests is a significantly better tradeoff than constantly reviewing it every time one of the above things happens.
Now, at what point is it "worth it" to use the 3rd party library? In our case we'd need to make much heavier use of the library, probably at least 20 different mathematical functions from it.
The whole thing just felt half-assed. I'm not going back. MS really missed an opportunity, because if it wasn't for quality issues, it would have been halfway decent.
Prior to that I used a mac mini with a TV tuner. The TV tuner software was horrible; the UI for programming the DVR was like writing SQL queries. I have a degree in computer science so I could understand it, but there was no way I'd try to explain that to someone who wasn't interested in databases.
My theory is that the emulator could swap in a higher resolution tile without needing to port the game.
Are there any emulators out there that let you swap in higher resolution assets so a game can be freshened without a complete port?
For example: A few days ago I saw a quote that over 90% of current Y-Combinator startups vibecode their products. The problem is the author misunderstands context: Startups sacrifice quality for time to market. In other cases, if you're building something that isn't technically challenging, (because it's 80% similar to many other products out there,) you can probably vibecode it.
In contrast, if you're doing something technically challenging, it's to your benefit to be a lot more hands-on. I recently started getting excellent reviews from copilot of my hand-written code. (Or, I should say, the hand-written parts of an AI-assisted pull request.)
Otherwise, your arguments about what "internet" is are flawed. IPv6 has been a thing for about 30 years, with a well-publicized problem with IPv4 address space and migration plan. I suspect that it's (IPv6) older than your hospital's contract. Even in the IPv4 world, your IP can change at any time and you can be put behind a NAT. That's why ISPs will sell you a static IP if you need one.
>> why do you need to stick with IPv4?
> To support devices and routes that do not have ipv6 support?
> Are they being removed from lower priority users in order to serve high priority usecases? If so is a hospital a low priority user?
After reading your response, I suspect the real problem is attitude and experience. The hospital should have IT staff that know to purchase a static IPv4 IP. This should be part of the contract with the ISP. If it wasn't, ultimately it's up to the IT staff to approach the ISP and arrange to purchase one.
I don't know much about your imaging servers: Do they accept incoming https connections, or is it some other kind of TCP or UDP protocol? Assuming it's https, why do you need to stick with IPv4?
> Hi, I’m helping a hospital in Buenos Aires that has lost their IPv4 due to their ISP moving to CGNAT, putting their on prem imaging servers offline for 7 days. (it’s ok for us though, we have a backup failover isp)
Two more things:
1: If you require IPv4, that needs to be part of the contract with your ISP. If they just arbitrarily turned you off, it means that you didn't contract for the services you thought you had.
2: IPv6 is supposed to solve a lot of these problems... So again, why can't you move to IPv6?
That being said, we should take the time to understand why IPv4 is still hanging around when IPv6 has been around since before most people got internet access. What is really holding IPv6 back?
It probably is, but it could be anything. For all we know, (joke,) it could be a pesticide with traces present in salads and fresh fruit, or exposure to a cleaning chemical in public transportation.
But the bigger issue is that the people pushing these theories are pushing them on moral reasons; IE, making an unfair claim that colon cancer is on the rise because people have immoral lifestyles. IE, from eating poorly or the multitude of other holier-than-thou lifestyle claims at the tip of their tongue.
Personally, my money is that we find out that regularly holding in farts increases the probability of colon cancer, and that we need a public health campaign to fart in public.
(In the winter, road salt corrodes the cars and the snowplows bear up the roads.)
IE, if you buy and sell stocks on ETrade, most of the time the ownership with the dow doesn't change, instead the ownership within ETrade's database changes.
(I personally don't drive them, but many of my family members love them.)
If you want to keep a new car 10+ years, they're generally a safe bet. Related: I had very little problems with my 2018 Tesla Model 3, but traded it in at 6.5 years because I needed a larger vehicle for my family.