tibyat

he's cto, ceo is eastdakota

well, the ceo did step down last month..

So glad to come across your comment. This has been driving me mad when I've been on long road trips lately. As a driver of a "normal" sedan, it's amazing how few cars i can see around/through on the highway at this point. I was specifically noticing the model 3 and its raised rear window. It requires a much larger safe following distance when the only signal you get is the taillights of the guy in front of you, especially when they're the type of human who cant figure out how to leave a buffer so they tap the brakes for no reason every few seconds. And of course with an abnormally large space in front of you you'll get aggressive drivers moving around to fill in the spot, mostly the SUVs who can see over most, which means you get to try to see around them now.

it's a shame the trend (toward larger and larger cars) is so at odds with the environment. cars are already such a large and inefficient solution for what theyre used for 99.99% of the time, why keep making it worse?

duo has been successful?

i agree, thanks for speaking out

I agree. I was trying to find out what synchrotron they used, Ars doesnt say! Went to read the paper, apparently they used some portable device for the xrf instead.

Why? Just do it all under vacuum.

But in cases where you must (cost/practicality limitations, dealing with liquids, etc), this is done by passing through a thin film of material that has a small cross section of interaction with the particles, typically "low Z" (low atomic number) elements like Beryllium (its rigidity makes withstanding 1 atm pressure difference easy), or simple hydrocarbon plastics like polyethylene/polypropylene.

But this depends on what particles you're talking about.

Sure, but where did the word "atom" come from?

Your question is obviously irrelevant. Whether or not they have flagrantly abused the power is irrelevant.

What is relevant is whether or not they could, how easy it would be to do so, how damaging it could be, and what protections we would have once they have done so. This is the threat presented by internet monopolies and their fetish for violating our privacy.

Also consider that no company has managed to stay on top indefinitely. Once their growth slows, and they become desperate to appease shareholders, what won't they do to make that happen?

Long after fads have changed, supposed benevolent coding wunderkinds have moved on, the troves of data will still be there, ripe for the MBA's, the lawyers, the mitt romney's, god knows who, to leverage.

The argument "they've been nice about it so far, so why shouldn't we keep doing it?" is a fucking joke.

just no. no to all of that. it's a trailer. it was taken down from youtube, facebook, twitter, tiktok, and now google drive. for misinformation.

name an instance of google removing a google drive file for bandwidth cost.

So he read a Thiel book recently and it now pervades his every answer to this interview? And his team had problems with his hyper-focusing? Funny coincidence.

Honestly there's pretty much nothing being said in this interview. People don't get along sometimes.

nylon did not. you’re probably thinking of teflon, which also did not, but is at least a common misconception, unlike nylon, which is widely known to have first been used for women’s ‘nylons’ in the 30s.

article says “1,300 kilograms (2,866 pounds) of xenon isotope”

not sure if that was intentional..

whataboutism

meh, Apple's certainly not alone in their profit margins on upgrades. It's a fairly universal strategy to keep the baseline appealingly low. Dell, for instance, charges $400 to upgrade from 16GB to 32GB RAM on some racks.

i'm kinda confused what the point of this writeup was? just something to have on your resume? i don't think anybody involved in research let alone data science had anything to gain from it, and it certainly didn't propose any solutions...

give your dad a break!