skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Several research groups and companies are working on in vivo applications of cellular reprogramming. Since its discovery, reprogramming has been used to produce induced pluripotent stem cells from any other type of cell. That process has been found to reverse age-related changes in epigenetic patterns and mitochondrial function characteristic of cells in old tissues.

Introducing the factors capable of reprogramming cells into a living animal may produce effects akin to stem cell therapy by converting a small number of cells into induced pluripotent stem cells, followed by stem cell signaling that beneficially affects tissue health more broadly. Alternatively, many cells may have their epigenetic markers reset to a more youthful state without losing their identity to become induced pluripotent stem cells. Or both. Beyond this, there is certainly the threat of cancer or structural damage to tissue through the conversion of too many cells, and this class of therapy will require careful development to ensure safety, even as the mouse data continues to look quite interesting.

David Sinclair has been pushing an epigenetic-centric view of aging of late, with analogies to information systems and computing. The most interesting part of the the supporting work suggests that DNA repair of double strand breaks has the side-effect of driving alteration of the epigenome in characteristic ways with age. That will be an important connection between stochastic nuclear DNA damage and deterministic global effects throughout the body, should the evidence continue to hold up.

As this illustrates, however, epigenetic change is a downstream issue in aging, a reaction to events and a changing environment, not a first cause. Fixing it may or may not turn out to be particularly useful in the broader picture of aging, depending on exactly where it sits in the web of cause and consequence. As a comparable example, hypertension is a major downstream issue in aging. It is far removed from root causes such as cross-link formation and inflammation, but is also a proximate cause of many forms of further dysfunction, such as pressure damage to delicate tissues in the brain. Controlling hypertension without addressing its causes is both possible and beneficial - but the benefits are limited by the fact that those root causes are still there, chewing away at the body in a thousand other ways.
Aren't they all? If you type text into an input field, it's best to assume it's saved, even if you backspace and write something else--it's all saved.

Comparing what people type and what they choose to publish is probably valuable.
52 wpm on mobile keyboard. Happy with that!
and then there will be calls for Cloudflare, AWS, GCP, Azure, Fastly, Digital Ocean, ICANN, etc. to ban them.
I'd like to see what happens if all the youth renewal strategies done on laboratory mice are applied to older, wild-caught mice of whatever variety is closest to lab mice.

I've heard the claim when calorie limiting applied to wild mice, they ... just die - they already have limited calories.

But just that leap might be a decent lesson.
Synthego | Redwood City, CA | Full Stack Engineer | DevOps Engineer | Front-End Engineer | ONSITE

Synthego is a mature biotech startup, developing an industrialized CRISPR genetic editing platform.
https://www.synthego.com/

About the DevOps Engineer role:

- Deploy a variety of microservices and monitoring.
- Containerization of microservices.
- Tech stack: AWS, CI/CD, Linux, Docker, Python
More about the Sr. DevOps role: https://jobs.lever.co/synthego/32998f71-6f22-40d4-b306-86fad9536b94
More about DevOps role: https://jobs.lever.co/synthego/c1dec2e1-4f44-4f4d-806a-0a5d7f3e905c

About the Full Stack Engineer role:

- Add new functionality to our LIMS (Laboratory Information Management System), enabling scientists to automate and improve their workflow.
- Tech stack: Django and React
- Non-CS backgrounds are also welcome.
More about the Full Stack role: https://jobs.lever.co/synthego/6391e353-c9cd-4316-8a8f-b343e83c169a

About the Front End Engineer role:

- Develop real-time UI (eg. websockets).
- Collaborate with users and develop UI for factory/lab software and tools.
- Tech stack: Python, JavaScript/TypeScript, Node.js, React
More about the role: https://jobs.lever.co/synthego/0826ebd2-274c-4901-b759-7b07e9e5e059

All open positions: https://www.synthego.com/careers#open-positions

Reach out at: recinternal [at] gmail dot com
Consider the knock-on effects though - that processor isn't necessarily optimising the things Samsung might want, nor is Android, which costs them more in other ways (I'm particularly thinking of the fact that Android phones seem to have to include a lot more RAM than iPhones, so that's another chunk of BOM).
Well 2 years ago I realized I needed career help. Over next few months I started reaching out to folks whom I worked with, folks I happened to meet and generally folks elder or more progressive than I.

My key takeaways from this

- people are more willing to help when you ask specifically. be sure you are asking the right thing to the right person. Dont ask for investment advice. Ask if xyz is a good investment for you in their opinion.

- People get defensive so as to not hamper their relations with you and keep out the honest and risky parts. Also they usually dont admit or undermine the luck and timing factors that went into their own life.

- Give them enough reason to show why you are a worthy investment of their time and resources.

- Be clear that you do not expect anything more than advice and guidance from them. Demonstrate to them how their advice was useful to them (a quick text is all it takes).

I feel talking to people beyond your age, occupation, geography and economical status is more fruitful and enjoyable.
Elevated stress hormones could reawaken dormant cancer cells
> Forcing SBMM in all cases just seems like it's meant to protect n00bs from getting crapped on but isn't this coddling players?

Most people want to have fun when they play. Players consistently getting curbstomped and having no reliable avenue for improvement is a good way to create a game with terrible player retention. People don't stay around to suffer through game after game just because they really like ninja.

"Ranked" implies a competitive, high-stakes mode, which drives people who want a relaxed game (i.e. one where they _won't_ repeatedly get curbstomped) to naturally gravitate away from a game described as such. You may think that's stupid, but you can't really fight basic human psychology.

Don't forget, "n00bs" are people too.
Obsolete building codes that rely on excess craftsman labor that are resistant to change by inspectors and craft unions.
Inspectors can not get on top of new materials. New stuff takes years to get into the codes, place by place, and the unions want to maintain the labor intensity of their business.
Modern wood made buildings are fine, but they need to add newer materials and ways of doing it.
Look at the building industry web sites. Most goes into high rise condos etc,.
> But aptitude for exploiting people is not what Y Combinator looks for at all. In fact, it's the opposite of what they look for. I'll tell you what they do look for, by explaining how to convince Y Combinator to fund you, and you can see for yourself.
>
> What YC looks for, above all, is founders who understand some group of users and can make what they want. This is so important that it's YC's motto: "Make something people want."

These things aren't necessarily as contradictory as they may seem on the surface. The full life cycle of many successful tech startups is to make something people want, attract a large user base, have an IPO and become billionaires, and then (when it comes time to generate the revenue that the investors were expecting when they invested in the first place) throw the users under the bus in favor of the real customers, whoever they are. Often marketers.

The early phase, where the company is simply providing users with the best product they can make and seems to be making the world a better place is often a mirage that disappears as soon as they switch to a revenue-maximization mode of existence.

I don't think it has to be this way; probably plenty of people have become billionaires and treated their customers well at the same time. It's just a common thread with many of the very high-profile tech company "successes".

Paul Graham deals with founders at the very beginning of their endeavors when idealism is high and strongly correlated with success. At that time it isn't exactly clear where their companies will be in twenty or thirty years.
Couple things

> Have you ever heard of someone getting “feedback” on a paper through a privileged and confidential document to HR? Does that sound like a standard procedure to you or does it just happen to people like me who are constantly dehumanized?

Taking a dispute with your management chain re: feedback that said management chain felt they had to take actions like a private, hr-involved feedback session, and broadcasting that dispute to a mailing list of peers, downlevels, etc.

> But now there’s an additional layer saying any privileged person can decide that they don’t want your paper out with zero conversation.

This was, from the perspective of google management, probably very much not a reasonable characterization of the aforementioned circumstances. Managers represent the company, including publicly. Timnit was obviously in an awkward position where she seems to have been a player coach, ie a manager also doing IC level work (in this case, research). It feels like she expected her actions as an IC not to be viewed as actions that also came from a manager. That's a very hard dual role to have.

Third, maybe shouldn't get you fired in a perfect world, but prolly will in ours:

Public internal criticism of DEI efforts on the part of your management chain. Imagine how that reads to a line-level employee at Google. Particularly an URM.

Fourth, same vein -- auguring on an internal mailing list
to get the CBC to criticize your employer

> I believe that the Congressional Black Caucus is the entity that started forcing tech companies to report their diversity numbers

I'm only paying attention because I'm curious if Timnit was hired to -- if you will excuse the phrase -- whitewash google's policies, and she didn't understand what Google was buying; or if there genuinely was some conflict here. I suspect both from different players in the executive ranks.
"Specifically, federal investigators collected log entries for "a single, identified US Web page" showing IP addresses that accessed it from "a specified foreign country." The document names neither the site nor the country in question."
I have no clue, I'm not an expert. I just don't see any discussion on this topic and it concerns me. Historically, I don't see any vaccine which was effective against such a virulent virus, unless it had a much higher rate of immunity. I'd gamble on 5% odds if the reward was high enough, so 95% immunity sounds good but it's only half as strong 97.5% immunity, for example.

I do know that the immunity may only be temporary--1 out of 20 cases of the most virulent strains may then have a larger substrate to mutate within, but I'm not sure if you can get many strains at once, for example. I do know that the flu mutates each year, and I guess I'm basing this whole "increased selection pressure could cause more mutations" on that fact. When there is less available space for the virus to propagate, it's only chance of survival is to be able to infect those who are already immune.

In my opinion, we have an immune system crisis here--we need to focus on eating better and exercising more: we have to fight this virus with every tool we've got, but if we wait a few more months it's possible that we'll get a stronger vaccine. I suspect that's why it ended sooner in certain places--I doubt any measure we can take have had any real effect due to the virulence of COVID--it's in the air and on surfaces and lives there for days, and is transmitted by asymptomatic carriers--so your uber eats driver driving in their car with the AC will infect your food etc.
I see what you’re trying to do there but that’s not what i was talking about. Some jobs become obsolete but we still need phisical stores. My neighborhood has very few stores open and that’s because of Amazon and friends. The value and the vitality of my neighborhood was largely destroyed
At what point do you think a firm becomes 'too heavy' and open itself to disruption?(IBM, Intel, Sears)
(Genuinely curious)

Does rent seeking count as productivity?
I've got a pair of Under Armor shirts I've had going on 14 years now. The branding has long since faded away but otherwise they're basically indistinguishable from the day I got them.

These are shirts I've worn for a week straight trekking through Central American rainforests.
When “hold people accountable to metrics” is not just your company’s management philosophy but the gospel of its entire surrounding culture, this is not an argument that gets anywhere. It is always better to just cover the damn lines than make your Director explain to the VP why he has worse coverage numbers than a sister org.

The same way you should make an expected “no such object” result a 200 status code, so that she does not have to stand up and justify her error rate.
I think the point that billionaires build is a reasonable one. There are basically two ways to make money: Create something of value and somehow keep some portion of that value or extract value.

Extracting value sort of works to some degree in some situations, such as mining (at least until you have ruined the environment and your unsustainable practices are coming back to bite you). But whether you are a "self made billionaire" or inherited it, you have to fundamentally be a good steward of value to at least some degree or things soon look like the dystopian outcome in the movie The Lion King after the hyenas ally with the bad guy lion.

Billionaires can only exist as long as billionaires create more pie than they keep -- though certainly it is reasonable to be concerned about exactly where that dividing line should be such that their customers/users/whatever phrase you desire to use here get sufficient value that they don't feel taken advantage of and screwed over. It gets easy for wealthy people to demand more without really intending to be assholes and get it because they haven't really figured out that the aggressive tactics that worked to make them rich are no longer appropriate now that they are rich because of the power differential that was created in the course of getting wealthy (money being rooted in power, not the other way around).

If you want "evidence" that billionaires fundamentally must provide some degree of real value, I am happy to point you to Theranos and Elizabeth Holmes. Theranos was valued at $10 Billion and went to zero valuation overnight after it was discovered the entire thing was a con job.
Lost much of my vision. Was restored by blood thinners and Diamox.

Not what the drugs were intended to treat. But a surprisingly effect.

2 dozen doctors had not been able to help me.
They control the entire system on a chip — remember how long it was before Android devices started to have the security features which Apple introduced in the iPhone 3GS? That took Google getting phone vendors to get the CPU vendors to all work together, whereas at Apple that's a couple of teams all working on the same product with the same incentives to make it succeed.
>How? I'm pretty sure if this was true, everyone would be using it for database work now, except no one does. So these claims are baseless.

Business are doing exactly that. They are using private blockchains to improve their existing architecture and enable new features. There is also an entire 'altcoin' market around this.

> So these claims are baseless.

I'm not going to give you a report in HN comments. You should DYOR.

> Evolve what? You don't even seem to be sure and are just guessing that it's novel and surely has some value, but you don't know why?

I'm not the deciding factor in what bitcoin becomes and won't try to guess what its use cases will be. We didn't know why/what the Internet was going to be used for and then it grew and evolved into what it is today.

> Trillions? Where do you get this number from?

Bitcoin's leading use case is a store of value, sometimes referred to as 'digital gold'. It has several improvements to the store of value use case. Gold's market cap is ~$9 trillion. Bitcoin already has a $350mm market cap so trillion+ is likely in the next several years.

Most of what I stated are just facts, you can argue against them all you want. You don't understand why blockchain technology is so important.
Gyms are where there is the most aggressive breathing and grunting though, and that volatalizes as much contagion as people singing. Restaurants are a calmer more subdued breathing environment.
I told my boss I won't work past 6pm and that I won't bring my work phone on vacation. I've had reports tell me they'd leave the team unless they can see a certain rate of career growth. No instant firings on either side.
Or have help show something like a man page such as google/python-fire or yourlabs/cli2
I guess but wouldn't that only be useful if there were only two possiblities. If the next "thing" in a sequence is from thousands, millions, or quintillions of possibilities then 67% is hellatiously better than 1 in $really_huge_number
I guess I glossed over the claim that the author offered completely unsupported, yes. This is the fundamental problem here, you need to be completely absorbed into this information universe to just accept statements like "all coronaviruses are the same as this one" as fact. Rushworth is not an expert on viruses, Kulldorff is not an expert on viruses, Gupta is not an expert on viruses.. there is a difference between epidemiology and virology. If you want to make virology claims based on citing authorities, cite virologists.

Asserting that all coronaviruses are similar and must have very similar effects in the short and long term seems like a very bad assumption to make, before the original SARS outbreak the scientific consensus was that coronaviruses were not capable of causing sevre illness in humans - despite their long history of being known killers of animals! Asserting we absolutely know things about this virus based on things that we didn't think the whole category of viruses was capable of doing less than 20 years ago without citations is bad!

So asserting that the long term effects of this virus are likely to be similar to the long term effects of other coronaviruses is not credible given the available evidence, and saying that it is likely to be similar to influenza (an unrelated virus that is very different) is even less credible. (And if the hospitals were this overloaded with flu patients every year we'd be worried about the long term effects on the survivors, but they are not!)

"I think we need to be careful about measuring potential adverse outcomes against one another, and try our best to use numbers that reflect the likely lived experience of people (to wit, nearly everyone contracts the "garden variety" coronaviruses a few times in their life)."

I don't know what this is supposed to mean, but if is contingent on believing that "garden variety" coronaviruses are similar in their effect to SARS-COV2.. I mean we can see just by looking at the ICU tallies in nearly every jurisdiction in the world that this is not the case so I don't know what conclusions you expect anyone to draw.

At the end of the day that is what this always comes down to with these COVID-19 debates it seems, the jurisdictions that haven't taken the virus seriously have been absolutely devastated by it, there is no secret knowledge to uncover. One should draw from that the inference that assuming that there is some secret formula of logic that will arrive at the conclusion that we already know the long terms effects of this virus seems less than credible. It might turn out to be correct! But that still won't vindicate the flawed logic of drawing the conclusion now.
Generally, "don't break the law" isn't considered an alarmist narrative. I concede that the supporting case I make assumes technical and legal competence by a government actor, which is frequently unlikely, but I wouldn't recommend building a house on sand just because an earthquake is unlikely, either.
I'm actually right there with you with your development related digs on Apple. They're draconian, and it's only gotten worse in the Tim Cook era. The major beef I've had with them the last decade are the whole slew of absurd (imo) hardware/design decisions and tiny oversights that never would've flown under the old Apple. Losing the headphone port to get a slightly thinner phone nobody was asking for? Shipping those damn butterfly keyboards? Ditching MagSafe power cords for "USB C everywhere" (but not on phones and not all usb C cables are power cables)? Pushing the Touch Bar like it’s the solution to everything when it solves nothing? Da fuq? I could go on. Just one silly thing after the other while I imagine them all patting themselves on the back for a job well done while watching that money pour in. And the prices! Macs were always expensive but damn did this last set of Pro level laptops and desktops get stupid expensive.

It's almost like they put a numbers guy in the CEO role of a formerly design obsessed company and the metric turned from "is this insanely great?" to "will this get us to the _next_ trillion dollars?"

So yeah, as a lifelong Apple user I've had some major beef. There's plenty to complain about. But with that all being said, I’ve been pretty happy experience and productivity wise running an old 2013 MacBook Pro and and a tiny iPhone SE and never considered leaving the Apple ecosystem, because honestly… what’s the alternative? Windows feels like nonsense to me, Google is privacy nightmare, and going full Linux feels like… work. I'm sure it would be possible to carve out a nice system and find some linux gui that doesn't look like complete garbage, tweak my settings just right, and find all the free versions of the apps I need. But at the end of the day I don't think I'd get that "it just works" feeling I still get with Mac OS—for me I'd think it'd feel like a successfully completed science project.

So for me, even at their worst, Apple is still best. And this M1 news and the new iPhone form factors (the 12 mini, specifically) has given me some hope that maybe they haven't completely lost their way.
Arecibo Observatory – drone and ground view during the collapse and pre-collapse
Criticizing the level of "self-made"-ness of billionaires seems like a waste of time. These are extreme outliers. Of course they had to start with every advantage and have everything go just right and also work their asses off. You're talking about a 1 in a billion chance to get to that level.

It's like looking at an Olympic gold medal winner and saying "Oh yeah, well of course they broke the world record in the 100-meter dash. They were born with genetic predisposition for the sport and they had the best coaches and their parents got up at 4am to drive them to practice and..." Well, yeah. But a lot of people might have those advantages and not achieve anything with them.

Sure, Zuckerberg went to some fancy prep school. So did all of his classmates. None of them started Facebook. There's lots of other Congressmen who have kids. None of them are Warren Buffet.

But claiming that being "self-made" is something that doesn't exist because the extremest outliers had unusual circumstances (this is surprising for some reason?) ignores all the people who make more modest success largely by their hard work and ingenuity.
I'm saying that it's reasonable to expect a significant fraction of the wealth that you created, which is true in every developed country. I'm not advocating for libertarianism.