Other than the opportunity for a misplaced pun on the term “spiral”, why would you take an otherwise linear-in-time graph and make it radial? Why would age 0 to 50 be somehow cyclical?
The author is displeased with the sort of discussions present on networks built on a couple different technologies. Unclear how the third technology magically makes them “happy.”
"In short: this author is endorsing a funding model focused on low initial investment and faster profitability."
-> so basically, Canadian "venture" capital. They don't even want to talk to you unless profitability is there or within a few months. So, basically, it distills to a barely riskier than usual bank loan, except you pay the loan with equity.
This is the furthest thing from the truth. That a human has a certain capability does not in the slightest imply that “DNA”, at least as commonly understood, encodes that capability, at all.
A bunch of molecular recipes encoded in a few gigs of nucleotides with some crude feedback loops do not a human make.
Quite apart from epigenetics as it’s commonly presented (methylation, and all sorts of histone antics), you might recall that DNA itself doesn’t magically grow up: you do need a cell.
It’s somewhat (and only poorly) analogous to being handed the source code to a C compiler written in C, without knowing C. Does the C code really encode C? Well, not without the compiler it doesn’t....
There’s then a very interesting discussion around how it’s even possible for a mammalian nervous system to bootstrap itself. Figuring out walking seems perhaps emergent: it’s a learnable technique based on not falling. But how do dog breeds retain intrinsic high-level behaviours even if they’ve never observed them? What makes a Shepherd so concerned when his assumed flock becomes dispersed?
We are a tremendously long way from answering these questions, but I would caution anyone who thinks it just “in the DNA”.
Toronto’s tech talent is keen... but relatively green. Since few companies have had to deal with scaling networks, users and data to the same magnitude as is common with Valley companies, it’s almost impossible to find senior engineers worthy of the title. Plenty of options for junior and intermediate, though.
A much much more rigorous proposal was put forward by an American mathematician several years ago regarding the geometry of trajectories of computer programs, which holds considerably more promise than whatever flimflam this author was going on about:
The main computationally intractable problems around drug discovery surround protein folding and identifying macromolecule shapes. This is necessary to infer receptor sites for potential drug targets.
The problem is massively intractable. QC could revolutionize the space.
I've heard you frequently compare the OOP paradigm to microbiology and molecules. It seems like even Smalltalk-like object interactions are very different from, say, protein-protein interactions.
How do you think this current paradigm of message-sending could be improved upon to enable more powerful, perhaps protein-like composition?