> Curing cancer is one of the only things I’d take a pay cut to do.
Send an email to this head-and-neck oncologist's lab. I saw a talk he gave at a Chicago-area national lab on open-source models for identifying malignancies in scanned pathology slides, and was smitten.
Which is why I pause when they say they're not looking for investor money – in medicine you'd at least have to phrase things in terms of "what already exists, and what's our contribution"? From that lens, I'm not sure what they're trying to contribute: instead of increasing the predictive value of full-body imaging, they're just making it cheaper?
I was probably not the first to have to do that, we knew what apps our customers used, making them better was the whole point of the operation
I did the architectural design for the SuperMac cards. I figured out what needed to be accelerated, dropping code into people's machines to see where the cycles were going. Others did the physical design for the first 2 cards, I did the design of the chip in the Thunder and later cards (designed the data paths and state machines and a full simulation, someone else actually laid the gates)
If your card has a SQD01 on it it's my work. It peaks at 1.5Gb/s on solid fills
> And Anthropic seems to be leaving OpenAI behind so there might be only 1 in the near future.
Well, in domains like SWE where Anthropic's putting in the effort. I don't they'll make the claims that OpenAI makes about how their models are pushing the life sciences forward, for example.
To put the mad profit that Xerox got from laser printers into context: Alan Kay estimated it alone paid off everything that Xerox had invested in PARC, and then a lot, lot more. (I think PARC in the 70s cost less than $10 mil annually.)
> The comments that this rather expensive endeavour should just be about getting a head count are also amusing to me. The data collected was such an important baseline of common understanding, and this will not be a good thing for its future quality.
Even without considering the Census data products alone, Census demographic data underlies virtually all extrapolation from other survey research. Everything from national opinion surveys based on tens of thousands of respondents, to small community surveys. A Census product with the most diverse participation pays off almost infinitely for America. It benefits everyone from national newspapers to rural counties.
If the smallest communities lose what little trust remains in the privacy of the Census, they have the most to lose in all of these ways.
That's my thought when I see the Census downplayed -- a massive amount of social sciences research revolves around the ACS. And it gets worse! Census data doesn't just control reapportionment (and/or gerrymandering), it directs how federal dollars trickle down to huge programs like Medicare and Medicaid that are then administered by states. Eroding more detailed household data like income throws programs designed to help people more out of whack, likely harming civic engagement even more.
Send an email to this head-and-neck oncologist's lab. I saw a talk he gave at a Chicago-area national lab on open-source models for identifying malignancies in scanned pathology slides, and was smitten.
https://voices.uchicago.edu/pearsonlab/
reply