My google account is associated with Switzerland, which is not in EU, although I am in Romania, which is in EU. I never received such a message from google.
"Execution is everything" is always true after the fact. Good and bad ideas are treated with disdain because that is how people are. Until a random person gets profit from execution, then is praised for the profit, because people desire and envy profit.
If there is a myth here, it is that it matters who executed it first. It's random.
>Well, giving a computer to someone doesn't turn them into a Bill Gates or Steve Jobs just because they own it.
I read this comment, I read the article and can't stop thinking what if Zuck were among these kids them maybe we could admire him as a musical talent like L-GANTE (link from the article)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SacHyFb_j1o
Is weird, I'm a forever quake fan, however some years ago I played (at a friend' house) a beautiful game where the player was the wind, there were no words, nor obvious hints, but instead a slow idea of the game goal, which was to somehow save the nature. Anybody can tell what game was that one?
Concerning the deterioration in social mobility, in France, this book from 2005 opened my eyes "Generation 69, les trentenaires ne vous disent pas merci".
In France "generation 69" are the boomers, to simplify. Therefore a rough translation of the title would be: "Boomers, the 30 something don't thank you".
It passes, in a humorous way, through all problems which later will be more and more magnified.
1. many times in HN comments I saw the opinion that ideas are cheap and scaling is everything, so why do you care if universities keep the patents?
2. from the point of view of the academic researcher, is there any difference between patent kept by university and no patent, but scaled by a company?
I used D3 v5 only for the force directed graphs part, independently in an artificial life & lambda calculus project. Is maybe too much for such an austere domain, since I saw comments that the result is "unnecessarily flashy". Give me any other visually comparable, but lower level js library for the same purpose and I'll take it. I'm not a programmer, but to paraphrase Mark Twain from A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court, I felt "I was standing in the awful presence of the Mother of the" functional_programming "language".
>"(His class on mushroom identification at the New School for Social Research was immensely popular.) How Cage accidentally poisoned himself and some friends"
I just read it and find this delightful, independently of John Cage. This formulation begs the question about how many of the students of this "immensely popular" class were later accident prone.
Maybe is voluntary humour from the part of the author, but I'd not bet on that.
A good, no nonsense reply! The world is complicated. There are so many people who want the vaccine and can't access it and other people who do have access to the vaccine and don't want it.
By writing this I'll contradict what I'm going to say, but, generally, not applying to this thread, I observed that many times people spend their precious time to write a reply instead of using it to better understand TFA.
Again I agree with you, because I had a similar experience. But, again, my conclusion is different than yours.
You write that we should not talk about biochemistry as computation, as far as I understand. Instead I'd say that we have not studied enough how nature does computation without programmers or even human friendly semantics.
Is still computation, involving space and physics. Too complex to efficiently simulate it (for now) but not big enough so that the emerging behaviour is simple, like for a gas.
I agree with you here but I get to a happy conclusion. The (self- or culturally imposed) constraint on computation to be semantically meaningful for humans does not apply for genomes. But this is already useful, because it means we at least have a hint about where to dig more in programming.
There is Theory of Computation and there is Theory of Programming. Your arguments apply to TOP but not to TOC.
>Don't try to think about genomics in programming terms.
At some point, some Newton person will figure it. It always happen.
As for now, it might be interesting to understand why exactly the analogy between genomics and programming fails. It might bring interesting insights into both fields.