Honestly this doesn't fit my usecase. If I understand it correctly, it is just like any other retention policy meaning it is not related to the fact that the attachment was deleted by user, but it just deletes everything after a certain point.
I don't mind storing things that people can access for many years - if I wanna see that funny picture from 10 years ago, I should be able to find it (even though GUI in Element sucks for that now). But what I do care about are things they uploaded accidentally or that they wanted to delete for whatever reason and it stayed on my server.
There are papers showing the common variants associated with intelligence. For example myelin sheath variants linked to intelligence as it increases fatty insulation around nerve fibers which speeds up transmission. But ones like that are surface level. This matters, but it isn't the only thing and for me the more interesting is the meta of what these have in common (besides often related to the brain).
The real problem is that most historical papers look for single SNPs. But a gene could have dozens of variants that do the same thing or you could have a genetic path where a major variant in any gene on that path results in the same outcome. These papers overlook this.
So you have to step back and asking: What are the principles of intelligence? and how would I expect to see them in human biological or other biological systems? (And related, why does humans have intelligence "now"?)
For this crowd, if I take an LLM and make it bigger is it intelligent? Obviously a key component of intelligence is raw stuff. Someone with fattier myelin sheath's straight up has more/faster "brain stuff". You might say ChatGPT 4.5 is "smarter" than 3.5, but not intelligent. There are two other key attributes missing. For those following along with the arc-agi you might already have a hint what those are simply based on what is moving the needle forward. Now even with all three and you are close and simply need to provide an environment for self-replicating with a selection pressure and energy constraint. For one definition (others will have a different definition) I have had a primitive AGI for 13 months now and regularly put it to work on sub problems of mine.
This really took off when I was reading genetics files like books and noticed I was reading files that are very similar, but some were Mensa level folks and others were more just "smart". Didn't take too much longer to piece together the key paths and differences and even went tracing back through Neanderthals DNA (How cool is it these days that we can simply poke around Neanderthals DNA!).
So it isn't forbidden, but more like I know what to look for and people are super sensitive around saying someone is probably smarter or not from a genetic file so I usually don't comment because of the Gattaca problem.
P.S. If you have a bio/genetic background and are playing around with AI I would love to chat. There are so very few of us. DeepMind is thinking of some of this, but they are in the UK. (It would be fun to give a meta talk to them explaining why their smartest engineers are smart.)
I've found the same. I've moved from a homebrew tinkerer's delight home network with pfSense running in a VM, Supermicro FreeBSD ZFS fileserver, hodgepodge of cameras etc. to a top-to-bottom Unifi Stack.
My time is worth a lot more now, my family appreciates very much that it "Just Works" (tm), and -- most importantly -- the cognitive load for me is a fraction of before.
Partially true, and the answer to that is runway -- it will be a very long time before all the other specialties are fully augmented. With respect to "non-surgical" you may be underestimating the number and variety of procedures performed by non-surgeons (e.g. Internal Medicine physicians) -- thyroid biopsy, bronchoscopy, endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography, liquid nitrogen ablation of skin lesion, bone marrow aspiration, etc.
The other answer is that AI will not hold your hand in the ICU, or share with you how their mother felt when on the same chemo regimen that you are prescribing.
The belief is -- and it is one that I share -- that this makes for more well rounded, human physicians.
Additionally, a greater depth of thinking leads to better diagnosticians, and physician-scientists as well (IMO).
Now, all of this is predicated on the traditional model of the University education, not the glorified jobs training program that it has slowly become.
Cynically, it's also a way for the US system to gatekeep "poor" people from entering professions like medicine and law because of the extra tuition fees (and opportunity time-cost) needed to complete their studies.
When I went 20 years ago, my school did not require a bachelor's degree and would admit exceptional students after 2 years of undergraduate coursework. However I think this has now gone away everywhere due to AAMC criteria
In Australia, Medicine was/is typically an undergrad degree.
In the mid-90s my school started offering a Bachelor of Biomedical Science which was targeted at two audiences - people who wanted to go into Medicine from a research, not clinical perspective, and people who wanted to practice medicine in the US (specifically because it was so laborious for people to get credentialed in the US with a foreign medical degree, that people were starting to say "I will do my pre-med in Australia, and then just go to a US medical school").
When I was in Australia and applying to study medicine (late 90s):
Course acceptance is initially driven by academic performance, and ranked scoring.
To get into Medicine at Monash and Melbourne Universities, you'd need a TER (Tertiary Entrance Ranking) of 99.8 (i.e. top 0.2% of students). This number was derived by course demand and capacity.
But, during my time, Monash was known for having a supplementary interview process with panel and individual interviews - the interview group was composed of faculty, practicing physicians not affiliated with the university, psychologists, and lay community members - specifically with the goal of looking for those well-rounded individuals.
It should also be noted that though "undergrad", there's little difference in the roadmap. Indeed when I was applying, the MBBS degree (Bachelor of Medicine and Surgery) was a six-year undergrad (soon revised to five), with similar post grad residency and other requirements for licensure and unrestricted practice.
My ZIP code happens to be shared by two separate cities and there are a few websites (Github, I'm looking at you) that will fail the payment, registration, etc. attempt if you don't enter the municipality that it THINKS is correct.
Exact opposite problem at my former rental: Two different properties with different ZIP codes... but they had the same address on the same road, just a mile apart (different jurisdictions).
I lived in a house; the other location was a nail spa. Strangers sometimes visited thinking they were at the right address (they weren't) to get their nails'did (they didn't).
A lot of this is on the people doing the platting in the first place. I would note, for example, that where I live in Oak Park, when they replatted the suburb after splitting from Austin Township with a different grid than is used in Chicago and the neighboring suburbs that
1. They kept the Chicago grid on the edge streets of the village so that, e.g., 110 North Austin would be across the street from 111 North Austin and
2. If they had kept the usual new 100 at each block system, the north-south streets on the south end would have been 1200–1249 which would have been identical to the numbers of the next block south in Berwyn and Cicero so the last block on the north-south streets is instead 1150–1199.
Contrast the borders of Los Angeles which in some areas are almost fractal in their complexity (there are buildings which straddle the boundary between L.A. and its neighbors and many blocks where adjacent buildings are in different cities). For whatever reason, the powers that be decided that the incompatible address numbering between adjacent cities should be retained so you will have weird discontinuities in building numbering along a block depending on what city the building lies in. I remember my wife having a doctor’s appointment in a building which was one of those which crossed the border so it had two different addresses assigned to it, one for Los Angeles and one for Beverly Hills.
A lot of P. O. Boxes have their own zip+4 address. You can spot these because the P.O. Box number and the +4 are usually the same (or occasionally the P.O. Box number is the last two digits of the five-digit zip code combined with the +4 so that a piece of mail with a box number and no zip code can be delivered to the correct post office in a large city).
There’s a less-known 11-digit zip code which is unique for every delivery point (so down to the individual residence). I’m not sure if multiple apartments in the same building have distinct 11-digit zip codes, but this does imply that a zip+4 cannot have more than 100 delivery points within its bounds.
Apartments will commonly have multiple Zip + 4 for the building so I imagine each apartment gets unique Zip 11.
Open Google Maps, go to Central Park in NYC, search for apartments and randomly pick one. Then go USPS Zip Code lookup (https://tools.usps.com/zip-code-lookup.htm) and punch in the address leaving off any apartment number so it will show all available addresses. I used 225 E 63rd St New York, NY. Appears they have 8 Zip + 4 assigned to the complex.
I tried again with building in Philly and same story. Each floor of 16 apartments got its own Zip + 4.
I think his point is that slavery is not outlawed by the 13th amendment as most people assume (even the Google AI summary reads: "The 13th Amendment to the United States Constitution, ratified in 1865, officially abolished slavery and involuntary servitude in the United States.").
However, if you actually read it, the 13th amendment makes an explicit allowance for slavery (i.e. expressly allows it):
"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, *except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted*" (emphasis mine obviously since Markdown didn't exist in 1865)
Sadly development along these lines has not progressed. Yes, Google Cloud and other services may return it and require some manual human intervention, but I'd love to see _automatic payment negotiation_.
I'm hopeful that instant-settlement options like Bitcoin Lightning payments could progress us past this.
Let me illustrate a common code organization issue some programmers run into on their first day. The novice writes
terminal.print("Hello world")
Then they decide they want to make the text red, so they edit their program to
terminal.print("Hello world")
terminal.setPrintColor("red")
And then they're confused that it didn't come out red. They haven't internalized that the first line of code happens before the second. They just get a soup of code on the screen that kind of has the ingredients for a program, and expect the computer to do what they want.
It is more satisfying to plug in a lightning cable. I know it sounds crazy. I can’t explain it.
I don’t care about charging speeds or data transfer speeds. When it is done, it’s done. Until then I will find something else to do or use it while charging.
That's not crazy at all. If you look at a male lightning connector, you can see detents at the sides that snap into a (spring-loaded) retaining mechanism on the female side. USB-C doesn't have anything like that which results in less tactile satisfaction.
I don’t think this is correct? GP is talking about the indentations on the side of the male lightning connector, which get gripped from the side by the device. I don’t think the center tab on USB-C has those same features, nor do the cables have the grippy things.
I’d welcome correction. Certainly if those features are there they don’t feel the same. Lightning has a very satisfying snick.
If you look closely, you can see the springy retention clips in the plug. Below is a Stack Overflow answer with more details, it includes a link to the USB-C spec where you can also see the corresponding notches in the male part of the receptacle.
Also, some good USB-C cables have a very similar click to Lightning, including Apple's own USB-C cables. Lightning and USB-C are essentially the same design, except USB-C adds an automotive-style shroud around the male side.
Interesting. I stand corrected and thanks for the links! Seems I didn't look hard enough at my USB-C cables. Now I'm curious - like the person I responded to, I always felt that Lightning is more tactile and more consistent than USB-C (including Apple's own USB-C cables) and I wonder why that is. Maybe the Lightning spring is beefier or something?
I have magnetized adapters for most of my USB C devices. I've had a USB C port fail on a phone in the past.
They are very easy to use and have a satisfying snap when the cord connects.
My only issue with them is that we were recently at Great Sand Dunes National Park and my phone fell into the sand. The magnetic adapter was covered with sand (which wasn't too hard to clean) and very smart metallic bits that stick to the magnet. They were difficult and annoying to remove and prevented the adapter from connecting.
I guess on the plus side they protected the original port. I was able to remove the magnetic adapters and charge the phone with classic USB C.
I guess I do have two issues. The adapter on my MBP is very particular about the cable I use. And the adapter, that supports high speed data transfer and charging, appears to be directional. Although the plug seems to be symmetric, in practice it doesn't work on both sides.
Actually if they’d put a little magnet at the back of a USB (whatever type) port, that would be satisfying as heck. Like the computer is actively grabbing whatever you plugged in.
From my experience using various (work provided) devices in outdoors agriculture use, I consider the lightning connector/port less prone to failure as well. If something was to break (from torque), it seems like the tab on the cable should snap or the cable just pull out before catastrophic damage to the port can occur.
Though I still had to replace cables because the cable itself developed a break somewhere, even with one that had proper stress relief at the ends.
Meanwhile most of the USB C ports on my Lenovo laptop from 2022 are barely working because somewhere along the line either the soldering broke or the port got too loose. Possibly from too much torque but I’m not sure. So the cable has to be at just the right angle. I’ve also done some android phone battery/screen replacement for friends, and had to do a few USB-C ports when it was possible due to the same sort of thing.
However all that is pretty much moot now, thanks to wireless charging and magnetic attachment docks. As such the only time I connect a cable anymore is monthly for cleaning out photos and other data. Previously I’d be connecting cables several times a day to charge in between fields as the battery went to shit. Honestly the “MagSafe” concept is the only change I’ve seen to smart phones in the past decade that I actually really like.
Lightning had small pins inside the port that could be caught by debris and pulled out of alignment (or in worst cases, broken off altogether). USB-C has no moving parts on the device side. Apple was reportedly behind that design since Lightning was nearing release when design for USB-C started (and Apple is/was a member of USBIF)
> Lightning had small pins inside the port that could be caught by debris and pulled out of alignment (or in worst cases, broken off altogether).
Lightning has 1.5mm of height in the slot, debris has to be pretty large to get stuck and usually it's enough to just blow some compressed air into the slot to get dirt to release.
In contrast, USB-C has only 0.7mm between the tab and the respective "other" side, so debris can get trapped much much more easily, and the tab is often very flimsy, in addition to virtually everyone sans Apple not supporting the connector housing properly with the main device housing.
Does anyone have reliability data for USB-C ports? It seems to me like Lightning is more robust to repeated plug/unplug cycles. But this is only on my limited sample size of one laptop with a failed USB-C port and some vague hand waving.
It shouldn't be, my understanding is that the springy bits (the most likely wear part) in Lightning are in the port, whereas in USB-C they're intentionally in the cable so you can replace it. I'm surprised you have a failed USB port, but I've never experienced one fortunately.
I see Lightning as fragile on both sides of the connection, since the port has springy bits that can wear, and the cables also die, either due to the DRM chips Apple involves in the mix for profit reasons, or due to the pins becoming damaged (perhaps this? https://ioshacker.com/iphone/why-the-fourth-pin-on-your-ligh... ).
USB-C has an unsupported tab in the middle of the port. It's pretty easy for that tab to bend or break, especially if the plug is inserted at an angle.
Lightning doesn't have that failure mode. Also Lightning ports only use 8 pins (except on the early iPad Pros), so reversing the cable can often overcome issues with corroded contacts. That workaround isn't possible with USB-C.
I've never seen a device with a broken tab. One thing people seem to misunderstand grossly to keep regurgitating these claims is that there are thousands of USB-C ports from different manufacturers and price points. The Lightning connector is strictly quality controlled by Apple. The USB-C in your juul isn't the same as the one in a high-end device.
The tab in the USB-C port makes the port more durable since it moves the sensitive springy parts to the cable(s) which are easily replaced.
Quality control matters, Apple is arguably quite good at it. USB-C is more wild-west so if you're prone to buying cheap crap you'll be worse off.
Reversing works around some broken conditions for usb-c, power and usb 2.0 data are on both sides. Depending on how bad the corrosion is, reversing may help.
Usb 3 might be trickier, but then iPhone lightning doesn't have that anyway.
The springy bits never wear out anyway. I've never once seen an iphone that couldn't grip the cable unless the port was full of pocket lint. Main problem I see is USB-C has both a cable and port which are hard to clean.
The springy bits get torqued weirdly by debris and can be bent out of alignment and/or into contact with each other. It’s rare, but it happens. And the whole port needs to be replaced, which usually means the whole device.
The Lightning port itself might be more reliable, problem is Apple Lightning cables always break, and all third-party ones (even MFi) are prone to randomly not working after a while. I'd be perfectly fine with Lightning if it were an open spec, instead it singlehandedly created the meme of iPhones always being on 1% battery.
The Lightning connector is superior for everyday use. It's exeptionally reliable, tolerant of debris, and difficult to damage. It was designed to last, unlike every single USB device port ever made, which was designed to fail so you'd need to replace the cable and device eventually. MiniUSB, MicroUSB, and USB-C. It's all trash.
Lightning has a perfect mechanical design. The pins phone-side are nearly possible to damage because they're well supported and only poke out in a bump shape that can't hook on anything. The cable side is the same way - no pins to catch on anything. The port is easy to clean out. The cable end is trivial to clean. The retention mechanism doesn't rely on anything that can wear out or break.
Meanwhile the USB-C connector puts a fucking thin wedge of plastic in the middle of the connector and even worse, there are pins around that center thin wedge and they're easily broken/damaged because they have no protection whatsoever and poor mechanical support. Oh, and the retention mechanism sucks just like it has in every
The USB-C port on my airpods is contactly getting fucked up while once in a blue moon I need to tick a toothpick in and rummage around a little to get some lint out of my phone's Lightning plug, and it's good for a couple more months...and that thing lives in my pocket, whereas the Airpod case spends most of its life sitting around on tables.
It's also a substantial plus that Apple tightly controls the cable spec. Just go look at the pages where people document USB-C cables that are so shitty they'll destroy the electronics in one or both devices.
because you still need a cable with a lightning end in your spaghetti of cables in a drawer somewhere. if all of your devices had USBC on both ends, then you don't need the one cable with the special adapter. you just need USBC cables. this isn't rocket science, and it's not a hard position to be sympathetic with either.
Having everything be lightning makes sense too, but is infeasible. Lightning was never going to be good for almost all devices, like usb mini-b, micro-b, and now usb-c have managed to get to.
[1] https://conduit.rs/ and https://gitlab.com/famedly/conduit [2] https://gitlab.com/famedly/conduit/-/blob/next/docs/configur...
reply