With the current significant investments and attention to consumer humanoid robotics this sounds like a very big deal. The difficulty of making dexterous hands could greatly benefit from powerful, compact 'actuators'.
> I read somewhere that the subconscious brain continues "working on problems" even when you are not actively working on it consciously. Hence the expression to "sleep on it".
It's something I've actively used for almost two decades now when dealing with challenges i'm stuck on. I remember one of my professors explaining it as having a 'prepared mind'.
What I do is, before I go to bed, try to summarize the problem to myself as concise as possible (like rubber ducking) and then go to sleep. Very often the next morning I wake up with a new insight or new approach that solves the problem in 10 minutes that took me hours the day before.
You were. At least, as long as you don’t take “you” to be just the subvocalized thoughts of your mind.
Something that gets in the way of people’s understanding of themselves (not accusing you of this) is thinking that they’re aware of everything going on inside their brain. This is obviously not true.
You can’t catch a ball by being aware of the angle of every joint as you do it. You can understand someone speaking by considering all the rules of grammar and vocabulary as you listen. It’s just too slow.
It’s like a CLI program in verbose mode. Even with stuff flying across the screen, you can’t print out everything that’s happening. It’s just too much.
While you sleep, your brain is rearranging itself to solve your problems. It would be just as accurate to say you are rearranging your brain, because your brain is a part of you and you are a part of it. If I give someone a handshake, my hand is touching their hand and I am touching their hand.
Keeping the conscious mind updated on this whole process at all times would be like telling a PM about every keystroke.
I don't have subvocalized thoughts, but I do know when I'm thinking. It wasn't that, it was like recalling a memory. I thought about the problem, and then the memory of the solution came.
Oh, interesting. Lots of people that have subvocalized thoughts (which is most people it seems) identify with them so strongly they think it’s who they are.
Three-dimensional printing offers promise for patient-specific implants and therapies but is often limited by the need for invasive surgical procedures. To address this, we developed an imaging-guided deep tissue in vivo sound printing (DISP) platform. By incorporating cross-linking agent–loaded low-temperature–sensitive liposomes into bioinks, DISP enables precise, rapid, on-demand cross-linking of diverse functional biomaterials using focused ultrasound. Gas vesicle–based ultrasound imaging provides real-time monitoring and allows for customized pattern creation in live animals. We validated DISP by successfully printing near diseased areas in the mouse bladder and deep within rabbit leg muscles in vivo, demonstrating its potential for localized drug delivery and tissue replacement. DISP’s ability to print conductive, drug-loaded, cell-laden, and bioadhesive biomaterials demonstrates its versatility for diverse biomedical applications.
I agree. As a programmer I never believe this is actual interaction of people but instead random events programmed to show up to spoof activity. There's no way to verify the truthfulness of the data. As a consequence I distrust the website and make an effort to find a different seller.
What you're trying to solve is a form of social validation and trust that brick and mortar stores implicitly have:
1. They have to have spent a reasonable amount of money to actually be there;
2. A busy store with lots of people at the registers means there's enough trust to spend money here.
To solve this in a virtual environment you'd need a comparable amount of implicit trust. For #1 it's doable: have a trustworthy domain name. Amazon.com is a lot more trustworthy than look-at-my-shop.tk.
For #2 I don't think there's a trustworthy equivalent, since it's either off-site by a third party or unverifiable by users.
> More should be revealed on 18 March, when Nayak is due to give a talk on Microsoft’s topological qubit data at the American Physical Society meeting in Anaheim, California.
> In the meantime, “there’s no convincing, even mildly convincing, evidence for Majoranas”, Beenakker says.
The field of quantum computing is very interesting for the difficulties and claimed immense gains when successful. The route that Microsoft has chosen for its research is a lofty one; doing it fundamentally different than others in the field. However, this 'break through' sounded exactly like the break through reported in 2018[1] which has been redacted.
As a freelance back-end developer with various co-founding experience this question speaks to me. I think it's all a matter of perspective.
Looking at it from a development perspective the two can mean the same thing: we pivot and so we need to add new features.
However, in my experience the key is to look at pivoting from a non-development perspective. As mentioned in parent comments you pivot to find a product market fit. That entails finding your audience and the problem you're solving for them. Those questions do not require a product, but a human understanding. Questions like 'is it actually a problem they need solving, or a slight convenience?' and 'how are they solving their problem without my product?'.
By pivoting quickly in that space you don't get bogged down by technical issues or challenges that don't even matter, and the real solution might be a week's worth of time.
Reading the following part confused me, since that's how I learned and I don't know Mr. McIntyre:
> But my Scrum friends reminded me that stand-ups were never supposed to be status reports. They said that an evil elf named Yesterday-today-no-blockers McIntyre spread that lie around the industry long ago, and people have been confused ever since.
So I did some digging in the resources from the ScrumAlliance. There I found:
> The three-questions format was included in older versions of the Scrum Guide but no longer appears in the updated guide.
So what to do instead? I also found this snippet which I think is useful:
> The daily scrum is not a status meeting or status report. The purpose isn’t for a scrum master, manager, or stakeholder to see who is on schedule and who is behind; instead, it’s an opportunity for self-managing team members to synchronize with one another.
And to think Waymo is one of the most advanced self-driving cars at the moment and this is on a very controlled part of the city. It doesn't bode well for confidence in the self-driving car industry.
>The last Extreme (G5) event occurred with the Halloween Storms in 2003.
>so it's not very serious
Why are there so many people misrepresenting information? What's the purpose?, we're just going to look it up ourselves and see that you were wittingly or unwittingly lying.
While this is true, not many of them hit earth... which these are. Which is why this is a thing now. They also aren't uniformly distributed over that time period.
According to their press release:
""We've done this to create a bulwark against surveillance capitalism, the risk of buyout, and open-source projects becoming abandonware," the Open Home Foundation states in a press release. "To an extent, this protection extends even against our future selves—so that smart home users can continue to benefit for years, if not decades. No matter what comes."
As we've seen with 'OpenAI' there's never a guarantee, but I applaud this step.
