this night I got accidentially the update to the latest iOS with this liquid glass stuff - and its schockingly bad in any dimension. keyboard input lags, many thing ned MORE clicks/touches then before, weird contenxt menu popovers that don't even register taps 50% of the time, general lags and sluggishness and UI artifacts everywhere. Its really really a degradiation of UI/UX even though I personally am a fan of that glass-style design in itself
Seeing the other comments I feel like the luckiest moment of my life was meeting my future wife when I was at school with 16 and having been together since for 20+ years, through higher education and kids and house mortgage and all. Zero drama, mutual respect and affection, both still preserving some independence to maintain a „self“, good double income.
Might sound stupid, but this major life area being just a rock solid fundament frees up so much energy my peers still struggle with nowadays quite often it’s insane in hindsight. Everyday life costs are lower, some risk taking is possible when someone has your back unconditionally and even supports it (as long as not going reckless), and a secure home base to return to is something I guess even money can’t easily buy. Short of being born already rich I guess that’s a cheat code with similar small odds, and I appreciate it.
Then the „business opportunities“ become just something way more relaxed. Not identity level validation attempts or despair to get into a better life. Which again allows better judgement calls and reintroduces more fun and creativity into many things.
actually a difference is also how many players along the supply chain siphon money out of the process. the more greed is allowed and acted on for the treatment, the more expensive it gets. introduce layers of insurances, hedgefonds, pension funds, lobbyism, ... it adds up to riddiculous amounts far beyond the original R&D/infrastructure/treatment costs.
And also downsides, e.g. many treatments just aren't available, and many others would never have had their discovery funded without the market-based system existing.
Governments can (and do) directly fund medical research including drug discovery. This is in part because governments of even just middling competence have an incentive to keep their workforce (which also includes their military) healthy.
This… is a think that people believe, but it’s not as simple as that. Most basic research is universities, all over the place. Many drugs are developed in Europe. A lot of medical machinery is developed and made in Europe (Siemens, Philips and Roche are huge in this space). Like most things, med tech is fairly globalised.
And let's not forget that a substantial amount of medical research performed in the USA is not market-based but rather publicly funded through the NIH.
> This… is a think that people believe, but it’s not as simple as that.
This is a thing people believe because pharmaceutical companies keep repeating it. And to be fair, they're not entirely wrong in that getting a drug/treatment from the lab to the pharmacy is incredibly expensive because most drugs don't work and clinical trials are super expensive.
It does seem to me that a better system would be to split out the research/development and manufacturing of pharmaceuticals into the lab development (scientists), the clinical trials (should be government funded) and the manufacturing (this could easily be done via contract).
Which the US had a situation exactly like that until very recently: development labs, often at Universities, with scientists paid for by grants (some private, but the majority being public, government grants), with clinical trials overseen by government agencies like the National Institute for Health (NIH), and winning research eventually being tech transferred for cheap to Pharmaceutical companies to manufacture, distribute, and market.
The companies have the biggest PR arms, so took the most credit for a system that had been balanced on a lot of government funding in the earlier, riskier stages. Eventually the marketing got so unbalanced people didn't realize how much the system was more complex than the marketing and voted for people that decided it was a "free market" idea to smash the government funding for the hard parts of science.
> Which the US had a situation exactly like that until very recently: development labs, often at Universities, with scientists paid for by grants (some private, but the majority being public, government grants), with clinical trials overseen by government agencies like the National Institute for Health (NIH), and winning research eventually being tech transferred for cheap to Pharmaceutical companies to manufacture, distribute, and market.
Yeah, this isn't a particularly new idea. Like, most of the risk in pharma is on testing, and there's so much waste in spinning up plants for drugs that may not even succeed in Phase III. So I'd like to split that out.
> It does seem to me that a better system would be to split out the research/development and manufacturing of pharmaceuticals into the lab development (scientists), the clinical trials (should be government funded) and the manufacturing (this could easily be done via contract).
The market is there to risk money in the world of imperfect information trying to predict what would be good to pursue. That is one of the hardest parts of the process, but it's not even made your list.
Exactly. This was entirely deliberate as I (personally) believe that market signals are profoundly useless in healthcare. Like, there's no free market in life or death, nobody will quibble over cash when they're in pain so I'm not sure how a market is supposed to work.
Fundamentally, the incentives of society and private companies are misaligned with respect to healthcare. Society wants a cheap, simple treatment that basically works forever (like sterilising vaccines). However, because of how the patent system works, companies want a treatment that is recurring, and can easily be patented multiple times.
Because of this, so much money goes into lifestyle treatments for the rich world, and not enough into re-using things that can't be patented. I think this is a giant waste of resources, hence my suggestions above.
This doesn't make any sense. If you make a thing, the price you set for selling that thing in a country has little to do with where you happen to be living when you made that thing.
Either Fullstack (senior/…/principlal), DevOps, Architect, or Team Lead/CTO, whatever - I grew up with having to do all the roles back in the day, from Startup Growth Hacking over Scale-Up Optimization to Enterprise Executive. Not crypto stuff or AI desperation.
I don't know, my own DevOps practises evolve around straightforward shell/go/js snippets that try to enforce the absolute bare reasonable minimum of infrastructure as cheap as possible, but with scaling paths laid bare if needed ever. sometimes a few lambdas/workers+CDN solve problems for essentially zero cost, sometimes people are amazed how far a single VPS can carry them nowadays. Or how fast SQLite can be. DevOps is about the art of shipping value to customers as fast as possible, at scale, with minimum cost (but not being the developer itself usually). With continuous improvement loops. But I can count on a single hand how often I actually needed to "scale up" something so hard I needed full on data migrations and all.
Huge fan of Cloudflare here actually. It’s always such a breath of fresh air compared to the heavyweight configuration hells like AWS. And for doing super convenient stuff like make node:http work on cloud functions recently, but guess only certain DevOps guys realize how cool that is compared to other FaaS wrapping ceremonies.
Too bad you don’t hire senior folks in Germany currently, would probably join in a heartbeat for emotional reasons alone. Keep going, lightweight features on a tap and solid reliability over years is exactly what I need and want at least.
also in the thinner camp here, and would gladly have accepted a way worse camera if they made the back uniformly thin actually. the closer we get to the "just a glass plate" thin design from the expanse the better :-)
but yeah, everywhere around all day there is charging options easily even in many public transports here around europe, battery life is simply not a convern anymore for most people at all. the only time i even thin kis when I forgot recharging over night for some reason, but then in the office theres plenty of options to recharge too
isn't this textbook "bitter lesson" playing out here again? whatever "frameworks" people try to build, the next generation of models will make them obsolete, no?
The models are still ingesting text, are they not? Those framework are providing textual guidance to what the task at hand should be aim for. Those are formalising part of the context passed to the LLM, regardless of the model itself.
reply