There are certain kinds of styles of gatherings that do much better when there are 40-50 people present, rather than 10-20. If you are going for a low pressure hang and want 10-20, it's easy enough to just tell friends and tell them to tell others, you'll hit those numbers easy. If you are trying to do something a bit more memorable and you want to guarantee a higher turnout, you have to invest more effort into ensuring attendance.
If you can get 50+ people to "just show up" without putting effort in, that means _someone_ (one of your friends) is putting the effort in, you're in college, or you're just super hot and famous
Just depends on the set. 10 people can just be five friends and their partners around one table. 20 people who don’t all know each other feels more than twice the size.
Remarkably, our experiences are _incredibly_ similar. Left ear, about a year, got all those tests done, specialists don't know other than "that's tinnitus for you - if I had a cure I'd be rich", 98% of the time I tune it out, I live in NYC, early thirties.
If you ever find something that works for you, please reply here @tombert, I'll do the same :)
Was going to post this too, I bookmarked it after seeing it on HN and I use it often. Yeah it seems to help me a bit. It seems handy just to identify tinnitus tones, when you have clear tones (I not not everyone with tinnitus does). I’d be interested to hear from anyone who’s had more than moderate success with ACRN.
I already posted another comment, but will mention here for GP that the ‘White Bursts’ noise generator on mynoise.net is where I’ve experience the strongest tinnitus reaction. I can audibly hear the tinnitus drop with every cycle, and after listening to it for a few minutes, my tinnitus is quieter for maybe a half hour, then it comes back later.
What if down the line we discover that MOFs can be used for sophisticated drug delivery? Imagine a therapy like this: a patient lies on a magnetic table, and is administered a dose of MOFs containing a specific drug, via bloodstream injection. The metal of choice is the MOF is magnetic. The magnetic table slowly guides the MOFs towards the part of the body that requires the drug, keeping them concentrated there for some period of time while the drug if absorbed by the body. If it is then necessary/ideal to remove the MOFs, the procedure can be performed in reverse. The patient's blood is drawn, and the MOFs are guided to the site of the injection. An external appartus filters the MOFs out of the blood, and returns the filtered blood to the patient (to minimize blood loss).
This therapy could take something like 1-2 hours and could potentially be a drastically more efficient way to administer drugs, because they will primarily affect the target organ/region rather than be necessarily dispersed throughout the whole body, which would result in better intervention outcomes, and less side-effects.
This is an excellent strategy for smaller startups, where every individual contributor needs to have an understanding of the customer's needs, in order to develop an understanding of what kind of product must be built. I have much more success in projects where I deeply understand the product requirements (because I am involved in defining them), than those where the product requirements are "handed" to me and I just have to implement something that satisfies them.
Are you saying that you follow directions better because you wrote them... or that you are just ending up with a better UX because of your involvement?
Human communication is incredibly lossy (sometimes intentionally), plus humans will try to fill in gaps with assumed information. The more people you cut out between the message sender and the receiver, the more likely the message is to still be intact.
The kindergarten game of telephone is the perfect demonstration. You only end up with distorted messages if you have many players between the sender and the receiver. If you play telephone with 2 people, you end up with a boring game where any mistakes in communication are immediately resolved.
The telephone game is the analogy I use too when explaining the value of having engineers in the custom calls.
Other than mistakes in communication, engineers often know what the hard trade offs are when designing a new feature while sales and PMs do not. They can ask the questions to find out if a customer is on one side of a trade off or the other. Or if a feature is 10x as expensive to implement because the customer needs/wants the benefits on both sides. Finding that out at the start can save a full development cycle of time/effort at times.
> engineers often know what the hard trade offs are when designing a new feature while sales and PMs do not.
I frequently run into the issue of PMs spending more time discussing and trying to slot a feature into the roadmap than it would take to just implement it. Most recently it was with trying to scope out how long it would take to ingest encrypted files. I wrote the feature and had a pull request up before the end of the meeting where they were trying to figure out if we could implement it this quarter or next.
The inverse is when a feature is assumed to be technically easy to implement (just change that setting), and you have to gently explain why that will take a week.
Having people who are technically competent in the meeting often allows a short circuit to getting tot the solution along a pathway that a PM didn't know esited ro was possible through no fault of their own.
LLMs are a godsend when it comes to developing things that fit into one of the tens of thousands (or however many) of templates they have memorized. For instance, a lot of modern B2B software development involves updating CRUD interfaces and APIs to data. If you already have 50 or so CRUD functions in an existing layered architecture implemented, asking an LLM to implement the 51st, given a spec, is a _huge_ time-saver. Of course, you still need to use your human brain to verify before hand that there aren't special edge cases that need to be considered. Sometimes, you can explain the edge cases to the LLM and it will do a perfect job of figuring them out (assuming you do a good job of explaining it, and it's not too complicated). And if there aren't any real edge cases to worry about, then the LLM can one-shot a perfect PR (assuming you did the work to give it the context).
Of course, there are many many other kinds of development - when developing novel low-level systems for complicated requirements, you're going to get much poorer results from an LLM, because the project won't as neatly fit in to one of the "templates" that it has memorized, and the LLM's reasoning capabilities are not yet sophisticated enough to handle arbitrary novelty.
The elephant in the room though is that the vast majority of programming fits into the template style that LLM’s are good at. That’s why so many people are afraid of it.
Yes - and I think those people need to expand their skillsets to include the things that the LLMs _cannot_ (yet) do, and/or expand their productivity by wielding the LLMs to do their work for them in a very efficient manner.
OMG thank you, unhook solves my biggest issue with youtube: whenever I would click pause to look closely at a slide, there's a bunch of huge recommendations that block the screen (I mean what kind of depraved mind comes up with something as user-unfriendly as that "oh you wanted to pause the video it's probably because you wanted to be distracted into watching something else in the middle of it, not because you actually had your own reason for pausing it, let me throw up these unrelated links at your face")
I deleted the apps too, but unfortunately I still like to use Instagram to follow photographers I'm interested in. These uBlock Origin filter rules have made it usable without being a black hole for my attention:
www.instagram.com##article:has( > div > div > span:has-text(Suggested for you)):style(opacity: 0% !important;)
www.instagram.com##div:has(> span > div > a[href="/explore/"])
www.instagram.com##div:has(> span > div > a[href="/reels/"])
The problem is not killing what lives in said water. And many times we the public become aware something damages the ecosystem when the damage is extensive, and some people never acept the fact, much less any responsibility.
Edit: In this specific case, the best case scenario is saving half the energy expenditure. Larger and more intrusive infrastructure with unknown effects for saving less than half the energy. Let's hope they always use renewables, btw.
I totally agree about the consequences needing to be understood, but in the end, if it comes to this, it’s water. We can’t survive more than 3 days without water. We will boil the oceans if we need to
