junippor

Fluff aside, here's the actual science:

> ( ... ) researchers from the Salk Institute and Kunming University of Science and Technology ( ... )

> In lab tests in culture, the team started with monkey blastocysts. Six days after fertilization they were injected with 25 human extended pluripotent stem (hEPS) cells, which contribute to the tissue as the embryo develops.

> And sure enough, when the researchers examined the batch of embryos 24 hours later, they detected human cells in 132 of them. After 10 days, there were 103 of these chimeric embryos remaining, but by day 19 only three still survived. After that, the embryos were terminated before they developed any further.

Saved you a click.

I'm guessing that the reason why this is called a chimera and not just a blob of cells from two different species is that the number of human cells increased from 25 to 132. But this seems like a very low bar to me...? I'm guessing that if you keep cells which you just extracted from a living organism and keep them in a comfortable bath, division might occur before they quickly die out.

> some of which are not subordinate to your state

Yeah, unlike representative democracy which works great /s

I think the point is that it's not "supernatural". Conceptually you could implement it. The opening and closing involves zero work. In reality the work won't be zero due to friction, but you can in principle at least approximate it really well.

Yes, very deeply.

I'm suggesting that anyone using Ubuntu would be better served by using debian :-) Thanks for asking :-)

New phenomenon for Americans.

The manufacturing process is a matter of precision engineering. "Remaining stuck" is just... psychologically difficult? How do you compare which one is "more difficult"?

Your comment makes absolutely no sense.

I don't know any details, but my understanding if that manufacturing vaccines is quite difficult.

It's just a prank bro!

> scanning WhatsApp chat backups uploaded to Google Drive

I've always assumed this was the case, but has this been proven?

Understanding doesn't come into this. Most people don't understand money any farther than $5 + $5 = $10, and it still works really well. Unlike bitcoin.

Again, the limitations with funding with money aren't a tech problem. The limitation aren't "regulations", or how "fast" you can send money. They're a legal one. There's literally no obstacle in wiring some startup some money. Where an obstacle DOES exist, is in you being able to credibly defend a claim on that equity in a court.

Imagine the following situation:

You: "I own 10% of the startup"

Judge: "You have no contract that proves that...."

You: "But I sent crypto instead of money!!"

Judge: "Oh in that case...!"

It's like when the word "crypto" is involved, people immediately surrender any critical thinking :-|

Could you clarify how this has anything to do with crypto?

It seems to me that you're acting as a fundraising platform: people give you money, you pass it on to startups, and you guarantee these people that they own some equity in the startup.

The concept of "own some equity" is a legal concept, and this is what you have to nail down. Crypto is irrelevant to this conversation.

I've been in tech professionally for 3 years and I feel like the same.

Cue HN on what a horrible language C++ is, and how soon enough everyone will be using Rust instead.

Sloppy thinking too.

> But at the moment at least, there is definitely something they share in common that distinguishes them. What retailer starts AWS? What car maker is run by someone who also has a rocket company?

So your justification for how you're classify Amazon is something the company does (good) but your justification for how you're classifying Tesla is other things the CEO owns? Very sloppy, Paul. Very lazy.

> he did something similar with his initial employees at Tesla and their options

Link?

Thanks for the link!

I know Python+Jupyter. I'm also a user of Julia+Juno.

What does Pluto give me that Juno doesn't? Pluto is called a "notebook" - in what ways is Pluto like Jupyter, in what ways is Pluto like Juno, and in what ways is it unique?

Here [1] I see sliders. Wouldn't it make more sense to integrate the sliders into Juno than writing a whole new IDE just so you can use sliders? Other than sliders, how else is it unique?

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xsK2358rA3Y

UPDATE: I just spent 5 minutes on it and I see that it's reactive. That's neat. But I'd still prefer to have this as an add-on to my IDE than on the browser.

UPDATE2: Oh and reactive plots too. Neat.

UPDATE£: Oh and I can really easily export to html..

You sound like you have to deal with idiots all the time and resent that.

You also sound like you don't know much about PostgreSQL if you can't immediately see what happened.

> i think you need to provide more details for a good reply. what changed between the time index was used and when it wasn’t? I also had to “convince” postgresql to use my index but that lead to a much better design

I disagree: given that nothing changed, I don't think any details need to be provided.

The question is NOT "Is postgresql's choice better than mine?" The question is "A certain design was working and suddenly broke because one day the query planner decided to start choosing a different (and unusable) plan - is this ever acceptable?" and the answer is obviously No, regardless of the details.

Ok, what do you say about this one?

> #9: Ridiculous No-Planner-Hints Dogma

One of these "query shifts" that the author mentions happened with a production database where I work. It was down for two days. The query planner used to like using index X but at some point decided it didn't want to use that and decided it wanted to do a table scan inside a loop instead. Meaning: one day a certain query was working fine, the next day the same query never finishes. In my opinion this is unacceptable.

What's your take?

Exactly, anyone can dispute the facts, that's why being able to hire better lawyers totally doesn't affect the outcome of the case, right? /s

How thoughtful of you! It's funny though that people like you never show up when the accused doesn't have an army of lawyers. In those instances, no one ever goes "guys, our desire to punish the accused must be tempered by the fact htat memories are not reliable evidence! Maybe she kinda wanted to be raped and can't remember it"

Really good read. And what a dodgy character, in my opinion.

> The only time she has ever turned down a case for reasons of repugnance was when she refused to testify for a man accused of operating the gas chambers at Treblinka.

( ... )

> Loftus said, “I was reeling. How about the presumption of innocence? How about ‘the unpopular deserve to have a defense’?”

Maybe in the latter case, the fact that she was promised $14k made the difference? Or maybe rape isn't bad enough that you lose the presumption of innocence, and genocide is? Or maybe she just wanted to participate in something so high profile.

> “I have to admit,” she told me later, “that it is fascinating to be, you know, in the trenches with the trial of the century.”

Why is this on HN?

> at the top level, the economy does seem to be valuing data work highly. Adwords & Amazon marketplace antitrust cases suggest that "data work" is at the core of these mega businesses

What is valuable about adwords isn't the "data work", right? It's their pricing power in the advertising space...

No, it's not. The scientific method is you adjust the theory to match the facts. How else would progress happen?