For context, at the moment they hope to have them operating some time in the 2030s. That’s a best case, just like the cost estimates (which operating practically and safely may be more than what people are forecasting)
Not operating today like it sounds from the comment.
I was put on 5000IU D2 and I got kidney stones, twice. The doctor wouldn't believe that the D2 was the cause, but I stopped taking it and the stones have not recurred.
I would like to bring my D levels up, but not at the expense of kidney stones.
I was put on it because I have stones and my parathyroid hormone level is 2.5x normals. The understanding is that low vitamin D causes higher PTH which can influence stones even though my blood calcium is normal. We didn't get to a root cause on the palpitations but my vitamin D has dropped back to 9 so I am going to have to supplement.
It's not, in many studies there was no observed difference between higher dose weekly or lower one daily when it summed up to the same amount. Sometimes even higher monthly doses are used.
High singular dose of Vitamin D taken at once could have some negative effects. Some formulations are administered with Vitamin K to try to offset this risk but it’s better to just spread the dosages out rather than expose your body to unnaturally high spikes of Vitamin D.
Utilizing lounges well is an art in itself, and some planning is required - depending on the airport and the airline there may be multiple lounges and options.
But the cost (unless free) often ends up being somewhat similar to just parking at the bar anyway.
I prefer to not arrive THAT early. Maybe if I had more layovers I’d care more about it.
I respond well to magnesium oxide and magnesium citrate in capsules but the chelated magnesium gives me heart palpitations or makes them more frequent if I am already having them. I hadn't noticed shortness of breath since the palpitations would have outweighed that.
Quick feedback if you're still monitoring the thread:
I did /imagine cheeseburger and /imagine a fire extinguisher and both were correctly generated but the agent has no context. when I ask what they are holding in both cases they ramble about not holding anything and referencing lemons and lemon trees.
I expected it to retain the context as the chat continues. If I ask it what it imagined it just tells me I can use /imagine.
Good idea. We need to do that. I'm also excited to push the /imagine stuff further and have B-roll interspersed with the talking (like a documentary) or even follow the character around as they move (like a video game)
I didn't know /imagine could be followed by a prompt, but similarly I asked the avatar about it's appearance and stated it had none. Should probably give it the context of what it's appearance is like, same thing happened for questions like where are you? What are you holding? Who's that behind you? etc etc
This is so obvious now that you say it (* facepalm *). We definitely need to give the LLM context on the appearance (both from the initial image as well as any /imagine updates during the call). Thanks for pointing it out!
> Docker created a standard so successful that it became infrastructure, and infrastructure is hard to monetize
Open infrastructure is hard to monetize. Old school robotics players have a playbook for this. You may or may not agree DBs are infra but Oracle has done well by capitalistic standards.
The reality is in our economy exploitation is a basic requirement. Nothing says a company providing porcelain for Linux kernel capabilities has a right to exist. What has turned into OCI is great. Docker desktop lost on Mac to Orb stack and friends (but I guess they have caught back up?) the article does make it clear they have tried hard to find a place to leverage rent and it probably is making enough for a 10-100 person company to be very comfortable but 500-1000 seems very over grown at this point.
Really should not have given up on Swarm just to come back to it. Kubernetes is over kill for so many people using it for a convenient deployment story.
Imo the problem with SaaS products is that their revenue expectations are priced accordingly to the market they serve, not the money it takes recreating them.
If I wrote the best word processor in the world, I could probably sell it for a decent sum to quite a few people.
However if I expressed my revenue expectations as a percentage of revenue from the world's bestselling novels, I would be very quickly disappointed.
This is a great way of framing it that I'd never thought of before.
I worked in engineering software for a long time and because of who we sell to, there's always been a very hard cost-benefit analysis for customers of SaaS in that space. If customers didn't see a saving equal to more than the cost of the software in Y1 they could and would typically cancel.
That's because in the US it's common to see pricing based on "value", rather than based on costs plus a reasonable profit margin. This is one big reason why US products don't have much success in the rest of the world unless they're truly irreplaceable like the hyperscalers. Most of the world considers value-pricing as basically immoral.
The "Fair Source" [1] and "Fair Code" [2] licenses are sustainable and user-friendly.
Imagine if Docker the company could charge AWS and Google for their use of their technology.
Imagine if Redis, Elastic, and so many other technologies could.
Modern database companies will typically dual license their work so they don't have their lunch eaten. I've done it for some of my own work [3].
You want your customers to have freedom, but you don't want massive companies coming in and ripping you off. You'd also like to provide a "easy path" for payments that sustain the engineering, but not require your users to be bound to you.
"OSI-approved" Open Source is an industry co-opt of labor. Amazon and Google benefit immensely with an ecosystem of things they can offer, but they in turn give you zero of the AWS/GCP code base.
Hyperscalers are miles of crust around an open source interior. They charge and make millions off of the free labor of open source.
I think we need a new type of license that requires that the companies using the license must make their entire operational codebases available.
The idea of not compensating for software took hold in the 2000s, both with engineers and consumers (remember when users scoffed at 99 cent apps?)
Big tech companies saw this as an opportunity to build proprietary value-add systems around open source, but not make those systems in turn open. As they scaled, it became impossible to compete. You're not paying Redis for Redis. You're paying AWS or Google.
> The idea of not compensating for software took hold in the 2000s, both with engineers and consumers (remember when users scoffed at 99 cent apps?)
Part of that was that the platform churn costs were a new thing for developers that needed to be priced in now. In the "old world" aka Windows, application developers didn't need to do much, if any at all, work to keep their applications working with new OS versions. DOS applications could be run up until and including Windows 7 x32 - that meant in the most ridiculous case about 42 years of life time (first release of DOS was 1981, end of life for Win 7 ESU was 2023). As an application developer, you could get away with selling a piece of software once and then just provide bug fixes if needed, and it's reasonably possible to maintain extremely old software even on modern Windows - AFAIK (but never tried it), Visual Basic 6 (!!!) still runs on Windows 11 and can be used to compile old software.
In contrast to this, with both major mobile platforms (Android and iOS) as an app developer you have to deal with constant churn that the OS developer forces upon you, and application stores make it impossible to even release bugfixes for platforms older than the OS developer deems worthy to support - for Google Play Store, that's Android 12 (released in 2021) [1], for iOS the situation is a bit better but still a PITA [2].
> As they scaled, it became impossible to compete.
To compete at offering infrastructure maybe, but what I would like is more capability to build solutions.
And I think that today one has much more open-source technologies that one can deploy with modest efforts, so I see progress, even if some big players take advantage of people that don't want or are not capable to make even modest efforts.
> Imagine if Docker the company could charge AWS and Google for their use of their technology.
An "issue" is that Docker these days mostly builds on open standards and has well documented APIs. Open infrastructure like this has only limited vendor lock-in.
Building a docker daemon compatible service is not trivial but was already mostly done with podman. It is compatible to the extent that the official docker cli mostly works with it oob (having implemented the basic Docker HTTP API endpoints too). AWS/GCP could almost certainly afford to build a "podman" too, instead of licensing Docked.
This is not meant to defend the hyperscalers themselves but should maybe out approaches like this in perspective. Docker got among other things large because it was free, monetizing after that is hard (see also Elasticsearch/Redis and the immediate forks).
> Imagine if Docker the company could charge AWS and Google for their use of their technology.
The technology on which Docker is based, Linux containers, was developed by Google engineers for Borg, and later Docker adopted it when it pivoted away from LXC (an IBM technology).
I don't comment very often on political posts and this is borderline off topic but if Trump had handled the pandemic by following the science we were putting to work and championed doing the best we could for saving lives he would have won his second term.
Instead we have been sold to someone(s) that only want to see us divided internally and externally expanding our isolationist stances.
It just feels like everything is taking polarization to the extreme.
I feel really terrible imagining what my daughter will inherit from all of this.
1000%, crazy to look back on spring and summer of 2020 and if he just played it cool and not rocked the boat so much, no doubt he would have been reelected. Not that I agree with many of his policies; if anything it speaks more to his incompetence and inability to remain calm than anything else.
Don't forget Trump had a hand in starting the pandemic.
Here's what we know: In 2014, Obama administration halted the so called "gain of function" research because of risk of laboratory accidents. In 2017, the Trump administration restarted this dangerous research. See links below.
Excerpt: [Obama] White House announced Friday that it would temporarily halt all new funding for experiments that seek to study certain infectious agents by making them more dangerous. The White House said the moratorium decision had been made “following recent biosafety incidents at federal research facilities.”
Excerpt: [Trump administration] on Tuesday ended a moratorium imposed three years ago on funding research that alters germs to make them more lethal. Critics say these researchers risk creating a monster germ that could escape the lab and seed a pandemic.
So, Trump restarted the dangerous research that Obama had shut down. You may be thinking, what does that have to do with Covid? Covid started in Wuhan, China, right?
It turns out that the Trump administration, through the National Institutes of Health (NIH), provided funding to the EcoHealth Alliance, an American non-profit organization focused on studying emerging diseases. The EcoHealth Alliance, in turn, provided funding to the Wuhan Institute of Virology in China for researching bat coronaviruses. The rest is history.
Am I wrong or Trump was the one who initiated the first shutdowns. Trump was the one who said we'll have a vaccine quickly, etc.
What should he have done that he didn't do, in your opinion? Fwiw, it was the economic shock from COVID that caused this situation where he's come back to ruin our lives again. Any further disruption to the economy during COVID would have exacerbated that
> One month after [March 16, 2020, when the administration first recommended social distancing], epidemiologists Britta Jewell and Nicholas Jewell estimated that, had social distancing policies been implemented just two weeks earlier, U.S. deaths due to COVID-19 might have been reduced by 90%.
So there’s a concrete thing he could have done differently.
> Any further disruption to the economy during COVID would have exacerbated that
More stringent restrictions done earlier may have shortened the duration of the economic impact, who knows, we can’t exactly observe those alternate timelines directly.
The administration had zero discipline on messaging and so nothing was done with any consistency. As you say, he was initially positive that a vaccine would arrive quickly; when it was available, he flipped and endorsed alternative treatments of all kinds, many of them harmful. Formerly a champion of Dr. Fauci, then later his worst detractor and chief prosecutor in the court of public opinion.
It's less what should he have done, than what shouldn't he have done. Specifically, he pushed conspiracy theories, demonized his health experts, and touted ineffective cures, and ultimately cast doubt on the safety of the vaccines. All to pander to his base. He had a remarkable chance to build trust in government via a truly extraordinary vaccine rollout, to a crowd which is historically distrustful. Instead he squandered that goodwill on petty fights and self aggrandizement.
And it was the scientists and doctors of the WHO, who denied the existence of Covid until after every country in the world had shut down. I thought covid denial was a bad thing, but you're still getting downvoted... In response to your last question i've got no idea. I don't have any confidence the vaunted scientists got it right back then either. Just look at the disasters inflicted on countries and states that imposed heavy handed and IMO largely unnecessary covid measures.
It's easy to say COVID measures were unnecessary when you live in a timeline where you were spared from the worst case scenario of an immediate global pandemic. The economic harm was huge, but we don't know what it would have been if we had not taken any protective measures and we didn't know back then either how dangerous the disease could be
reply