Going off the other reply, I wonder if a highly-active secondary market means that companies can raise series [A-Z]+ rounds effectively forever, where each "round" just refers to a giant purchase of shares under strict company supervision. Is this the new game for startups?
Unrelated, but I see the use of the phrase "taste" as having a strong Twitter / e/acc smell (in a negative way).
I tend to associate it with folks who are prepared to victim blame researchers for not adapting to the "new economy" as being people who have "bad taste" or "low agency", maybe as a way to rationalize/justify the upcoming inqeuality that AI will create.
Basically a recycling of the way "IQ"/smarts/hard-work has historically been used to justify disproportionate rewards for the upper class.
(Obviously a gigantic stretch on my part, and not saying the author is in this camp, but just wanted to vent somewhere)
I feel he'd want to rebut the use of an LLM for this task to begin with (i.e. find issues/nitpicks with the LLM judgment whether it said he's right or wrong)
+1, the tokens from before a quantum hack will be transferred to a new fork. So at that moment, the value of BTC will go to 0 and the value of BTC v2 will take the value of BTC.
However at the moment, the community seems to be leaning towards pay-for-quantum-resistance [0]
To what extent is YC's current strategy a form of "cookie-licking"? I.e. capture a small fraction of every plausible startup created by the next generation of students?
I'm guessing they were looking for preferential delivery to certain cell types, and AAVs just happened to have best profile for those. If anything, LNPs might aggregate in the liver even more than AAVs, which can lead to even worse hepatotoxicity if an immune response happens.