"value" not "valuation". It has a value of hundreds of billions, if not trillions, of dollars. It would require enforceable patents to have that value funnel to one company.
Lets see, are there any parallels?
Is there a solution to soil eriosion thats been supressed for 60 years, like perrenial agricultur
If only there was a solution to climate change thats been supressed for 60 years, like nuclear power!
Supressed is not the right term- not developed. Marker settles on a local optimum and does not make the huge investment needed to go to the global optimum. Also all the current market leaders lobby against the transition.
Well, how much money did they make selling probiotic mouth wash?
I'm pretty sure if they had gone with curing all the world's cavities I would have heard of them. The brand recognition alone would be worth more than a probiotic mouth wash company.
Very unlikely there was a miracle cure that was left on the table because founders wanted to sell mouthwash.
It isn’t that simple. Say you believe that you have a miracle cure, but it will take a billion dollars to go through all the medical trials. And at the end, you could find out that it isn’t a miracle cure or could end up having too many side effects, then you are out a billion dollars. You just might not have the pockets deep enough to risk it. A probiotic mouthwash may have the potential for a fraction of the returns, but may only cost 5 million to bring to market.
If the cure is powerful enough to self replicate and resource starve the cavity causing bacteria, there is literally no business model. You could in theory swab a treated persons mouth and grow your own cultures.
If you can make money off open source, you can make money off curing every cavity in the world... But the company decided instead.... To sell mouthwash?
But you know how money is made off open source? Usually by support subscriptions (which, to be fair, is also how money was/is made on low-volume, high-value proprietary software, like e.g. SDKs for obscure and ancient industrial protocols). Beyond that, there is no general way to turn open source into money. Instead, open source is used by companies:
- To lower their costs - by outsourcing a chunk of development and testing to free volunteers; also by improving quality and reducing on-boarding costs of new hires (as you can select for those who already spent significant personal time learning your tech stack);
- For marketing purposes - mostly in terms of marketing to prospective employees, but for companies targeting technical audience, also marketing to customers;
- As a weapon against competition - the code you open-source is code your competitors can't sell; this is useful both in breaking into a legacy market, as well as restricting the kind of competition you'll get from those who started after you;
Where does the money come from then? Usually some combination of venture capital, rent-seeking and advertising. Open source destroyed the viability of the simple, honest model of providing value in exchange for payment. The alternative business models are much worse for end-users and society at large.
Assuming the bacteria story is true, your open source analogy is wrong. Anyone can copy the bacteria (similar to open source) but there's no maintenance needed once the bacteria is released to the public. Anyone in any country can offer to give you the bacteria. It's naive to think that anyone but a non-profit would release something like this.
Apples entire business model goes against that philosophy. Reoccurring revenue is where it’s at. Unless you actually want to make things better, in which case you’re shouldn’t be in business. (Which these guys blessedly aren’t!)
It’s not but it is also a) a selected example of many to illustrate a point with clarity, b) a widely emulated model, c) essentially what the company who pivoted pivoted towards. Rather than a one time solution, a reoccurring subscription model, so is salient and likely it or a similar model was considered in that switch.
I agree. Sadly most investors risking capital don’t. That’s why I love these guys and hope they get their funding. I imagine they fall outside some kickstarted T&C prohibiting bioengineering for use in humans, and likely Patreon too, but I would definitely kick over some bucks to help them if there were a channel.
One of the findings from researchers in the book Altered Traits is that largest (positive) cerebral changes were associated with time spent at intensive retreats. This is also very much a part of Zen practice (etc) so presumably practitioners have found some additional value in intensives over the years.
This actually makes sense. A leaker is someone you've specifically disclosed info to, not just a random adversary. If you can't keep your own team from leaking, greater chance the info you're hiding is in the public interest.
A hacker doesn't even know what the information is before the attack and is likely an adversary who will use any information to damage, regardless of public interest.
I’m pretty sure the emails about Hunter’s interactions with the Ukraine government are relevant to the “public interest”? Maybe they show corruption, maybe they don't. But if the article is censored, I guess the public won't get the chance to make a decision for themselves?
And as as the Twitter files show and the Democratic rep (Ro Khanna) highlighted, they were banning a “news article” about hacked materials, no hacked materials themselves. Are we prepared to even ban the media from talking about hacked materials?
The big change for me was to stop thinking of quitting as something you should succeed at on the first try and start treating attempts as trial runs for gathering data and improving your approach.
The other piece was combining many different levers: social support, replacement activities, rewards, motivation statements etc. You need as many tools as possible because addiction is tough.
For more on this type of approach check out the book Change Anything... Helped me more than any other source.
A key idea they discuss are "critical moments" - ie that time when you're buying the 12 pack. You need to figure out when and why that happens and design a plan to address it.
Capitulation rewards nuclear blackmail and invites emulation, causing future episodes of brinkmanship. It is far from clear this path is more likely to avoid "armageddon."
You can dismiss freedom from mass rape, arbitrary execution, tyranny and the rights to dignity and self-determination as "some principles"– but without these principles there is no world that is worth saving.
Seems ironic to ask this on a post where a guy's cheating device malfunctions causing him to lose. There could be limitations which prevent him from cheating completely accurately
No, not ironic at all. Said device was extremely unreliable and failed to win even 2 games - while the person you accuse of cheating has improved from 2400 to 2700 in about 2 years. Pretty reliable cheating device he had, only to fail at the crucial moment.
Also, consider this: Nakamura knows that the position is good, but does he know it before he sees the evaluation, or after? Because it is a fact that when top player knows it is +3, he can explain why it is so good. But just looking at the board, without knowing the evaluation, he might have a very different conclusion.
Many people appear to be missing the point here. Cloudflare claims there was an imminent threat to life created by KF. That's a factual assertion that's either true or false (and well probably find out which.)
If true, free speech is not applicable. Blocking the walkie-talkies of terrorists coordinating
a bombing does not restrict "free speech" under any reasonable definition.
This level of tactical coordination to commit violence appears to be what they are hinting at in their post, and I take them at their word .
It may be they are lying and caved to pressure in regards to KF being generally heinous, but until we find out the specific information that caused them to assess an imminent threat to life, we can't really judge the wisdom of their decision.
“'A privatized internet will always amount to the rule of the many by the few,' writes Tarnoff, and since that tendency is hardwired into capitalism itself — not just a certain iteration of capitalism — fixing the internet requires a different strategy: deprivatization."
The problem here is that network effects and economies of scale generally make centralization more practical. Capitalism's competition between multiple centrally managed models, although not perfect, is tough to beat.
"Rather than lay out a concrete plan for a deprivatized internet, Tarnoff explains that experimentation will be key."
It's tough to clap your hands and summon a decentralized system, but Jacobin maintains typical faith something never tried will work well, as long as it's anti-capitalist.
Seems like regulation within capitalism is a much more dependable way of addressing flaws in the free market.
Is it plausible a company would choose to sell mouth wash instead and that the cure would remain undeveloped for 20 years?