Wow, that is incredible. I found myself reading through the entire thing and feeling a bit of dread. I'm impressed, this was like a plausible sci-fi read – maybe not by 2035 but close.

Am I understanding correctly that this Nobel prize is for work that was completed over 20 years ago? I'm not a biologist but it sounds like they discovered regulatory T cells together, which sounds relatively major. Is it typical for a Nobel prize to lag that kind of discovery for decades? Or is it only now that we understand how major the discovery was? Or maybe I'm just misunderstanding the discovery and the timeline.

At least in Physics, on average every year there is more than one discovery that is worth a Nobel prize. So there is an increasing backlog of people who should get a Nobel prize. You can look at the list and check that people in the 1920s got their prize about 15 years after their work [1]. But recently people have been getting it about 30-40 years after.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Nobel_laureates_in_Phy...

Yes, many Nobel prizes are awarded for work that was completed decades ago in part to ensure that the work passes the test of time.

Highs had a delay of 49 years from paper to prize, though he got the prize the year after his theory was experimentally confirmed.

They got Nobel prize because they made most important discovery than all other living scientists.

I just realized I was listening to news of the 911 attacks in the background for at least 20 minutes. Then heard the sound of static as it changed to a different stream. Super cool, I love this.

Isn't that true for other companies that survived the times? That the bubble created extreme highs before it burst and now the companies have grown more naturally?

For example, Intel: https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/INTC

Honest question. Not my area of focus.

I read that as needing funding. Somebody has to pay for the research. In order to get it funded, you have to show your research has a basis. My interpretation anyway.

Think about it. You walk into a video store, you see 8-Minute Abs sittin' there, there's 7-Minute Abs right beside it. Which one are you gonna pick, man?

I'm 10 minutes in and find the narrator is a bit hard to understand. There isn't much in the video beyond the audio, at least in the first part, so maybe the storytelling improves. I'll keep watching later.

Yeah the actual video content portion of his videos varies a lot, but this one is basically just an essay that can be listened to.

As for his British accent, I find him understandable at 2x speed, but there are many others I can only listen to at 1.5x

I get where you’re coming from, but I don’t think the article is misrepresenting the study. The research looked at over 1.2 million children and specifically examined whether increased exposure to aluminum containing vaccines was associated with autism or 49 other health conditions, and it found no evidence of a link. Since aluminum adjuvants are one of the most commonly cited concerns in vaccine skepticism, especially in claims about autism, the study directly addresses that idea.

So while the article’s headline simplifies the finding by saying “no link between vaccines and autism,” it’s not inaccurate. It reflects the key takeaway, that within the vaccines that include aluminum, which are widely used in childhood immunizations, there is no indication of increased risk. That’s important and relevant.

It’s fair to expect transparency, and I agree that people should be encouraged to read the actual research, but in this case it seems to me that the summary is consistent with what the study actually tested and found.

I've been doing this for many years and am pretty happy with it. I can sync from my Android and my wife's iPhone. The Photos app is nice and smooth. Backups happen automatically in the background. It can even de-dupe and clean up old photos that have been backed up. All in all, quite pleased with it.

How would an AGI prevent others from competing? Sincere question. That seems like something that ASI would be capable of. If another company released an AGI, how would the original stifle it? I get that the original can self-improve to try to stay ahead, but that doesn't necessarily mean it self-improves the best or most efficiently, right?

AGI used to be synonymous with ASI; it's still unclear to me it's even possible to build a sufficiently general AI - that is, as general as humans - without it being an ASI just by virtue of being in silico, thus not being constrained in scale or efficiency like our brains are.

Well, it could pretend to be playing 4d chess and meanwhile destroy the economy and from there take over the world.

If it was first, it could have self-improved more, to the point that it has the capacity to prevent competition, while the competition does not have the capacity to defend itself against superior AGI. This all is so hypothetical and frankly far from what we're seeing in the market now. Funny how we're all discussing dystopian scifi scenarios now.