joefigura

6 ms·

1.
by joefigura 2y ago
The author makes this point. "These aren’t immutable aspects of your personality. They’re more categories for how you approach the job of software engineering - you’ll move around between quadrants as you change your approach to work,
2.
by joefigura 3y ago
A person who becomes addicted to opiods, methamphetamine, or other "hard" drugs will with some probability require medical treatment, and and some people who uses those drugs will cause other costs to society. I don't know wh
3.
by joefigura 3y ago
Link to paper here: https://www.cell.com/cell-chemical-biology/fulltext/S2451-94...
4.
by joefigura 3y ago
This is the paper on AOH1996 which a flagged front-page AI-generated story was based on. The title of the paper is "Small molecule targeting of transcription-replication conflict for selective chemotherapy," but that was too long
5.
Promising Cancer Drug - AOH1996 Cancer Drug Paper(cell.com)
2 points by joefigura 3y ago|1 comments
6.
by joefigura 3y ago
That is not the paper mentioned in the press release, that's a different paper on the drug published in 2018 by the same group. The current paper is here: https://www.cell.com/cell-chemical-biology/pdfExtended&#x2F
7.
by joefigura 3y ago
That article should be ignored and people ought to read the PR that the research group put out. https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/city-of-hope-scient... Edit: Or better yet, the paper https://www.cell
8.
by joefigura 3y ago
Agreed, the author on the linked article is listed as an AI, and the article is just an AI mangling of the PR release. The PR release is directly from the group and the link ought to be changed. Edit - Here is the FDA record page for the re
9.
by joefigura 3y ago
Well, half the comments are making fun of the spotty quality of the evidence and it's been barely a week since the paper was published. I think it's reasonable to wait for at least a pre-print of a successful replication. I don&#x
10.
by joefigura 3y ago
I mean it's been like 3 weekdays since the preprint was widely noticed. Labs in the U.S. are working on it and will publish. I don't think the difference between publishing a replication in 3 days or 2 weeks is meaningful to make
11.
by joefigura 3y ago
Dude sometimes scientific progress really does happen, and it's messy when it's happening live, and people get excited about it because they really do find science inherently exciting. I've got no clue what you're trying
12.
by joefigura 3y ago
In general I'd agree with you, but in this case I think the second group very likely didn't reproduce the first group's material. The measured electrical properties of the two groups aren't even close to each other. I th
13.
by joefigura 3y ago
idk if it turns out this material is a room temperature superconductor, the rushed second paper will have been the right thing to do. Science happening in real time is gonna be messy
14.
by joefigura 3y ago
The evidence is all the weird bits about how the paper was published, and other internet comments about the third author's relationship to the group. The authorship of the papers is relevant to the science here, since both papers have
15.
by joefigura 3y ago
Ooh, please share pre-prints if and when anyone sees one for this group
16.
by joefigura 3y ago
Scientific collaborations have gotten steadily larger over time. Groups are no longer 3 people exchanging letters, and the 3 person limitation makes no sense.
17.
by joefigura 3y ago
I just wrote a comment in another thread that's relevant here too. It looks like the first superconductor paper was released by a rouge researcher, without the agreement of the other two authors or the rest of the LK-99 group. This for
18.
by joefigura 3y ago
This comment intrigued me, so I pulled together some information. The first paper submitted is titled "The First Room-Temperature Ambient-Pressure Superconductor." It lists three authors: Sukbae Lee, Ji-Hoon Kim, and Young-Wan Kw
19.
by joefigura 3y ago
Rockets always blow up on the first launch :) It's a machine that's ~95% fuel by mass. Explosion is the default outcome, not exploding is a triumph of engineering.
20.
by joefigura 3y ago
Not sure about other chat apps, but to connect to imessage they were originally using jailbroken iphones and now use MacOS virtual machines, according to another commentator. So there is a bit of additional work that would be necessary to f
21.
by joefigura 3y ago
"There is also plenty of fun to be had: ETA Accountability Bot - when I send “I’ll be there in 10” it could follow with an accurate translation: “on average, this means I’ll be there in 13.26 minutes”." Brilliant!
22.
by joefigura 3y ago
3D printing a rocket would be a lot more convincing if it hadn't taken Relativity ~7 years and billions of dollars to make it to a first launch attempt. They'll probably do alright, but that's much more capital and much longe
23.
by joefigura 3y ago
This article really frustrated me the last time it was posted, but now I think I have a clear enough idea why to put it into words. You absolutely can tell people things! But to tell someone something, you need to do three things: - E
24.
by joefigura 3y ago
Coinbase has been operating since 2012. The big crypto ICO wave was in 2017. The total market cap of digital assets today is ~ $1.2 billion. It's crazy for the SEC to make no regulations, allow Coinbase to go public two years ago, and
25.
by joefigura 3y ago
No. They aren't investment contracts. They're just sneakers. The SEC regulates the market for investment contracts (securities). The CFTC regulates the market for commodities. The legal point is that the SEC says Coinbase is a sec
26.
by joefigura 3y ago
It doesn't seem like the SEC has actually said what Coinbase is doing that is a security, or published regulations on how to determine which digital assets are securities and which are not "The SEC staff told us they have identifi
27.
by joefigura 3y ago
The SEC's position is that some crypto coins are securities. Gambling, hookers, political donations, and non-profit donations are all regulated. Securities are regulated even more tightly because it's *really* easy to commit fraud
28.
by joefigura 3y ago
And Coinbase's position is that none of the crypto assets it lists meet that test. For the coins Coinbase lists: - Criteria #2 is debatable - They don't meet criteria #3 - Or they don't meet criteria #4 Lots of coi
29.
by joefigura 3y ago
Coinbase's position is that that ICO was not an investment contract. Not everything called an ICO is an invetment contract - the point of that SEC page is to provide guidance on when an ICO is an investment contract. Coinbase's la
30.
by joefigura 3y ago
The SEC literally approved their public listing two years ago. It's disingenuous to describe them as "an exchange for legally dubious tokens"

More ›