Coding being the act of encoding/decoding information from one representation to another. The system itself is called a Code and these are designed to have specific properties like making transmission of information resistant to interference, corruption or interception, etc.
In this case, corporate management holding the purse strings but their workers (devs) using the actual tools. The solution they offer to founders is to make the user your champion and have them sell your product for you.
"The meta point here is that you're not going to talk to the credit card holder; the user/dev is going to do that for you.
Give them the best possible chance at convincing the leadership. Make them look awesome for even bothering the leadership with a choice like this. Make it obviously awesome for them to decide “yes”. These users/devs are your sales people."
Maybe that works for dev tools with freemium models, but in many industries where this problem arises its just not possible to even get your product in front of the users. Take hospital systems and EHR purchasing where Doctors and Nurses are the users of the EHR day in and day out but it is the hospital administration that ultimately gets to decide which EHR is deployed. How do you get users to be champions of your product if you can't even get it in front of them?
Rodney Brook's keynote at Stanford HAI earlier this month.
Some interesting points right at the beginning relevant to recent on-stage demos by companies including like Nvidia and Tesla.
- Product lifecycle has a realistic timeline on order of decades going from research lab demo to a realized commercial product. He first saw demos of driving cars arriving in 1979, yet we still don't have Full Self Driving in 2025.
- @2:35 "Humanoids they're everywhere and what is it doing. The form of a humanoid is promising that it's going to be able to do everything that a human can do. And it completely fools VCs. A lot of people's pension funds are going into all these robots and its not going to end so well."
Rodney Brooks states he's built 4,500 humanoid robots in his lab.
Well there are now many instances of enforced disappearances.[1] To what the administration likes to call jails in Ecuador, except for the fact jails and prisons are part of legitimate criminal justice systems with judicial review/due process. These can be more accurately described as concentration camps given that they lack the features that would make them legitimate jails or detention facilities.
"
[Enforced disappearance] is characterized by three cumulative elements (defined in A/HRC/16/48/Add.3):
A) Deprivation of liberty against the will of the person;
B) Involvement of government officials, at least by acquiescence;
C) Refusal to acknowledge the deprivation of liberty or concealment of the fate or whereabouts of the disappeared person.
"
If you think about the administration's unwillingness to comply with the court's ruling to return the individual, who by their own admission, they mistakenly took away due to an "administrative error" there are many open questions. How do we know that the individual is still alive? For that matter, how do we know that all the other people who they say were removed from the country are still alive?
We have no independently verified information as to fates of these people. More likely than not, in the course of these actions by the government, the number of deaths is some number greater than zero. Even if they have not performed outright executions, some deaths as a result of the conditions and or their treatment in custody is almost certain. So is that state sanctioned man slaughter/murder? Does this make ICE a death squad?
Ok sure but also the number of CT scans has been increasing exponentially (3 million CTs in 1980, 20 million in 1995, 60 million 2005[0] to 93 million in 2023[1]) so you'd need to find some opposing force that is decreasing the incidence of cancer cases exponentially per capita to keep the balance.
There have been and continue to be technological improvements that reduce the dosage required. There is not a single dosage for all CTs. The dose for a head CT is an order of magnitude less than for abdominal/pelvic CT.
"The current average effective dose of a CT study is ∼10mSv, with the implementation of dose reduction techniques discussed herein; it is realistic to expect that the average effective dose may be decreased by 2–3 fold." 2010
https://www.ejradiology.com/article/S0720-048X(10)00311-6/fu...
It would be neat to see a chart of the average effective dose of CT studies over the past 40 years. And any accounting of how much it declined as a result of Moore's law and software improvements for producing the "Computed Tomography."
Love that xkcd chart. One thing it doesn't show is that different particle species of radiation have different effects on our biology at different "potencies". Gamma rays released by an atomic weapon being worse than the x-rays utilized in CT scans. A rough guide to degree of risk per species has been given a value in the form of a quality factor (Q) or a modifying factor used to derive dose equivalent from absorbed dose for purposes of radiation protection. A scale where less dangerous alpha particles are given a value of 20 and gamma, x-ray and beta a value of 1.
"CT scanning became widespread in the 1980's. Cancer incidence is flat to slightly decreased since then. I'm not sure their risk model matches reality. Many of these models are based on extrapolation from higher radiation exposures and there may be a fundamental issue with how they estimate risk."
https://x.com/NathanRuch/status/1911803050857050502
From the paper itself:
"We projected future lifetime radiation-induced cancer risk
using the National Cancer Institute’s Radiation Risk Assessment Tool (RadRAT) software version 4.3.1, which utilizes risk models from the National Academy of Sciences’
Biologic Effects of Ionizing Radiation (BEIR) VII report for 11 site-specific cancers ... using a more recent follow-up of the Japanese atomic bomb survivors and pooled analyses of other medically exposed cohorts."
So I wouldn't hang my hat on the claim "that CT examinations in 2023 were projected to result in approximately 103,000 future cancers over the course of the lifetime of exposed patients."
Are CTs without risk? Of course not but quantifying that risk isn't easy with the data and models we have available. We should be glad that the authors are trying to do so but also be cautious about publicizing their estimate as an eye-catching headline. Since most who read the headline will over interpret it as an established scientific fact that meets a higher level of evidence than has actually been met.
The image maintainer wrote a short blog post in 2021 putting forth the rationale and good faith intentions of the project as a resource for security research.
I'm surprised that ~$10 million dollars of GPUs, @ $40k per H100 and excluding operational costs like the energy bill, only rents for $455k per month. Sounds like a really tough business since the amount of time required to recoup the costs of ownership (~21 months) seems like a really long time. A new generation or two of chips will have hit the market in that time, depreciating the recurring rental income. Leads me to wonder how much if any profit can be made renting GPUs.
Wow, it's amazing to me how much anki eventually caught on with medical students. Back in 2008 I introduced my med school classmates to Anki via a web app front end that I scrapped together. Basically it allowed us to crowdsource a shared flashcard corpus but with individual accounts each with their own state for Anki's SRS, allowing us to practice from any web browser without having to have Anki installed locally. Though it had some success among some of my fellow students, the vast majority of the class did not want to engage with a web app for studying back then, so I'm surprised by how much penetration it has now.
"27 nodes, with 4PB of flash storage for playback within Sphere and streamed in real-time to 7thSense media servers, each streaming 4K video at 60 frames per second"
I would be interested to better understand how synchronization is achieved here. Is that a relatively solved problem for applications such as this or was there significant engineering to achieve it at this scale?
I do not believe there are any restrictions on what 0-days can be sold to or bought by the American government. As far as I know the only thing resembling restriction is regarding export to non-allies which stems from the Wassenaar Arrangement. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wassenaar_Arrangement
And I'm not entirely certain how codified into law such restrictions are on private citizens and companies. There is always article 3 section 3 clause 1 of the constitution where it outlines the crime of treason as "levying war against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them aid and comfort." Though I don't know that selling a security vulnerability to a foreign government would be considered treason or trigger any related laws. I'm unaware of any prosecutions or civil suits against private citizens or companies regarding the trade of 0-days.
Exciting! V has a knack for making things that let others make creative things with ease. I'm a big fan of their prior work such as https://cheapbotsdonequick.com/ It's to bad twitter shutdown api access sunsetting all the amazing works people made with that. Looking forward to what people make with down pour.