> The beauty of this, despite the bad views on blockchain, is that they freaking sped up the cryptography of commonly used algorithms more than anything open or closed source that I personally am aware of.
For users that have AVX-512, which isn't widely available (AMD Zen 4 / Zen 5, Sapphire Rapids)...
Sure, and cpus supporting it will proliferate. Shockingly to no one reading hacker news... Both software and hardware continue to improve with time generally speaking. This was a huge software improvement on hardware that supports that functionality. It is a huge win for anyone wanting to use these algorithms where they can afford hardware that supports it.
We should celebrate Amazon's improvements and we should celebrate these improvements. Both are great for the future of technology, regardless of why they were initially developed. Improving tech and keeping it open source is good for all.
Incidentally, and naively, I have to ask: Is there a business model that can promise customers a product that's immune to eventual usurpation? It's a hidden cost to build your world around a product only to see it turn into pay-to-play.
Not only the steps do to this properly would probably kill most companies, but investors would avoid such company like the plague.
They'd basically need to lose all protection on their product, making it a de facto open source (note that there are companies operating on open source stuff, but they actually make money out of the things they don't open source - such as "pro version" or know how). Plus, investors value the pool of recurring customers far more than basic cash flow or such (because you can squeeze them more) and the next best thing is customers you can make recurring customers by moving your product to a subscription model.
Sadly, it seems the kind of caution you advocate is conspicuously absent from cable "news" punditry. Even worse, there are millions of viewers who feel that they are being informed by this kind of caustic debate.
Many people are more persuaded by rhetoric than truth.
Which is a huge problem. It reduces politics to a high school popularity contest which excludes discussions of substance.
Real experts lose the debate because they're not trained in rhetorical manipulation, and they can easily be demonised.
The idea that experts with PhDs and decades of experience may have more skill and experience than an ordinary person offends the ignorant. ("You don't tell me what to do.")
The result is popular support for disastrous self-harming policies.
There's a question of values here. VC may be the path for maximum monetary gain and maximum growth, but maybe it's not if you want to _make_ something that represents your values. Once your 50% slips to 49% and below, it's game over.
Thanks, I looked at PineTime and a few other programmable watches. She decided that she didn’t need an interface and wouldn’t use any function outside of the time. So I went with a Lilygo t-wristband (https://www.lilygo.cc/products/t-wristband).
> The project no longer involves collecting new bat samples or working with live viruses. WIV has no role beyond contributing more than 300 whole and partial genome sequences of SARS-related bat coronaviruses from its collection, Daszak says.
I join others in their skepticism, but, as a layman, I'd like to know: Is this gain-of-function research as described? What are the risks if the research doesn't involve live viruses?
Does it really matter? Given how much they've already obfuscated the semantics and definition of "gain of function," why should we trust that this time, they're really not doing anything resembling gain of function? And even if we could give them that benefit of the doubt, why should we? The board members of EcoHealth should be receiving federal prison sentences, not grant money.
(FWIW, I acquired mine two years ago, and it looks like recent sales on ebay are in the same ballpark...)