The whole article reads like a puff piece for Zuckerberg/meta.
They had him on the stand and these were the most interesting questions and answers? I feel like the WSJ is trying to convince me facebook is a good company trying its best and Zuckerberg is a reasonable empathetic person.
Plenty of adults don't catch it either. You don't need to be blatant. Dress it up in neutral business language, keep the arguments one step removed from the conclusion, and anchor it in assumptions people already hold about markets and American institutions. Then it's nearly impossible to push back on without sounding like you're attacking the premises.
The Cosmic Microwave Background Explorer was a satellite back in the 1990s that measured the Cosmic Microwave Background of the universe. This CMB is the afterimage of the Big Bang, about 400,000 years after the Big Bang when the universe suddenly became transparent to photons- the earliest images of the universe we can possibly capture in light.
And it found that everything was the same no matter where you looked, to about 10 parts per million. So that is the level of variation in the density of the universe about a half-million years after the Big Bang, the differences are measured at the level of parts per million.
And then back in the 1990s the Hubble Space Telesecope took pictures of the previously most luminous galaxy ever recorded, and it was really far back in time, within half a billion years of the Big Bang. And these luminous galaxies were something that we expected to mean that they were built around gigantic supermassive Black Holes. Which means that in a very short amount of time we must have gone from "everything is the same to parts per million" to "here is a gigantic accumulation of mass concentrated in this one spot so densely that all of our models of physics don't work any more."
And so the Webb Space Telescope was built specifically to look for things in between what the Hubble had seen (in Visual Light) and what the COBE had seen (in Microwave), that is Infrared. It is designed to look for these supermassive galaxies that had Red Shifted (1) so far they had left the visual spectrum and gone into Infrared. Figuring out how all of these super luminous galaxies formed is the main question that the whole thing was designed around.
1: As things move away from us, the photons shift to the red end of the spectrum. According to Hubble's Law, things the faster something is moving away from us the earlier it is in time, and the further its photons are shifted to the right: this is why the Cosmic Microwave Background is in microwave, because it has been red shifted so far it has gone into the Microwave part of the spectrum.
It's a galaxy far far away and more importantly very very old. The image is 13.5 B years old, the photons were created just 280 million years after big bang. It's the oldest thing we have seen so far. And it looks mildly different than what we expected to see
In our current understanding of how universe formed galaxies accumulate gradually and it takes time. This one was quite large already, very shortly after the Big Bang, which is at odds with our understanding.
> I assume it's important because we expected nothing and there was something?
I'm still impressed that in my life time, this keeps happening. The best/obvious example is Hubble's original Deep Field. It was a patch of sky assumed to have nothing in it, and most were happy with that answer. To the point, it was a difficult process to get the scope time to aim the very expensive space telescope at nothing essentially just for the lulz. Now that JWST is online, it is constantly getting "for the first time" results.
It's not quite Luis and Clark, but the astronomers using JWST are discovering new parts of the universe that confounds our current expectations.
I guess I shouldnt be surprised on how many use "LibreOffice" or other legit company names to lend legitimacy to themselves. I'm wondering if companies like Zoom don't audit the extension store for copyright claims
I for sure used to use Video Downloader PLUS when I still used chrome (and before youtube-dl)
My mothers' friends have to fund vacations for their adult children and grand children in order to spend time with them. They wont let her stay at their home.
My mother was giddy when my father died; so I have strong boundaries in our relationship.
My brother moved to colorado after the service and never returned.
I'm not convinced having children is the answer alone. (I say as a childless 35yo)
There are many reasons this could be the case. The internet (and Reddit in particular) is abound with AITA type discussions around boundaries within families.
Being a parent is orthogonal to being someone people want to spend time with. Unless I knew for sure I was not in the latter group, I wouldn’t use it as a justification for not having kids.
I know there's a lot of questions why it's so expensive, but can I just extol the work done by Riley and team?
Since the Epstein files dropped they've cloned gmail, gdrive, gmessages, amazon orders, transcribed court proceedings (yes with AI), fights, facebook, and imessages.
It's an insane amount of work. They added the latest batch of files, photos, videos in like 2 weeks. And he's keeping up files that the justice department took down.
jmail has made it so much easier for everyone to explore the files.
I don't know how Riley has planned to monetize this or if it's simply for the public good. I can totally understand not wanting to optimize for cost from the outset. And I see a lot of abject criticism on every social media platform rather than constructive.
> Streaming speech recognition running natively and in the browser. A pure Rust implementation of Mistral's Voxtral Mini 4B Realtime model using the Burn ML framework.
> The Q4 GGUF quantized path (2.5 GB) runs entirely client-side in a browser tab via WASM + WebGPU. Try it live.
Excluding names (Mistral's Voxtral Mini 4B Realtime), you have 1 pretty normal sentence introducing what this is (Streaming speech recognition running natively and in the browser) and the rest is technical details.
It's like complaining that a car description Would contain engine size and output in the third sentence.
They had him on the stand and these were the most interesting questions and answers? I feel like the WSJ is trying to convince me facebook is a good company trying its best and Zuckerberg is a reasonable empathetic person.
reply