Is it just me. Or has the term "ship", "shipped", only become a (specific to software production) industry-used term asn of relatively recent times? Specifically as Sam Altman has been using it a lot I have also noticed. Ever since his increased use of the term, I've seen it used more and more. This could be one of those times where I am noticing it because I am thinking about it, but it really doesn't feel like that.
I have always associated new software versions with with my the word "release", "released". While shipped is not an incorrect term to use for software. Release just feels more appropriate.
Has anyone else noticed this?
All of that said, I am not condemning the practice in the least. Just interested in the etymnology of one of my favorite areas of interest. Hopefully draw some more knowledgeable folks on the question.
It's not a new term. Steve Jobs coined (or at least popularized) the saying "real artists ship" in 1983[0], and using the word "ship" this way is probably even older than that.
Okay, what about the Earth? If mitochondria are alive, you must also consider the Earth as being alive too. Personally, I think it's a simple answer. Here's my reasoning on the topic for anyone daring enough. It can be a very blurred line, but much of that is our shadow. Mitichondria are more alive than they are dead. Simply because they exist as potential and can go on and are intended for this, for lack of better words. Where as a rock will not come alive, no matter the conditions. We hope.
Maybe we should think of it like we do for other forms of energy and how I be thought we did think of it already as biochemical energy expressions. Along with kinetic energy, potential energy, chemical energy. Surely there is a number determined for the maximum lifetime energy output potential (work) of a single mitochondrion. While it is plain and simple, that's just life for you.
"Molecular biologists tend to focus on characteristics like metabolism, growth and development, response to stimuli, reproduction, and the ability to process information or evolve."
Even if you stretch the others real hard, I don't see how you'd argue that the Earth "reproduces." Especially not the more rigorous definition of reproduces fertile copies of itself which can evolve.
Okay, what about the Earth? If mitochondria are alive, you must also consider the Earth as being alive too. Personally, I think it's a simple answer. Here's my positively b reasoning on the topic for anyone daring enough. It can be a very blurred line, but much of that is our shadow. Mitichondria are more alive than they are dead. Simply because they exist as potential and can go on and are intended for this, for lack of better words. Where as a rock will not come alive, no matter the conditions. We hope.
Maybe we should think of it like we do for other forms of energy and how I be thought we did think of it already but was of biochemical energy expressions. Along with kinetic energy, potential energy, chemical energy. Surely there is a number determined for the maximum lifetime energy output potential (work) of a single mitochondrion. While it is plain and simple, that's just life for you
All science does is show us how to move a whole bunch of piles of shit over into one big pile of shit, off in the corner. Or perhaps on to an unsuspecting group of poor people because, the burden demands to be he held and somebody has to hold the bag of shit. Right?
We may interpret this as convenience... But the tragedy of the commons says that we can't even have science if someone isn't holding what it is we don't want to be holding... I'm not saying I didn't love science or not think it's super interesting or anything... Can we really say it alleviates suffering or does it displace it for one group of people until a new problem comes in and takes that one's place? How many people here will be holding the bag of shit tonight? USA numba 1!!!
"We conclude that the hemispherical power asymmetry still remains as a challenge to the standard model." [1]
1. https://arxiv.org/abs/2411.15786