Readit NewsSometimes I learn new things because they are new. And sometimes I learn new things (that are well known to people in other fields) because while I know a lot about some things, I know very little about others -- so little that I don't even know those things overlap with my interests.
Those of us who enjoy learning appreciate that we will never know everything we would like to, and in fact we will never know the boundaries of knowledge for topics we care a lot about. It's not that it is unimportant to us, it's just that we hadn't learned about it yet. That's why we read essays.
For an example Medicare and Medicade had a fraud rate of 7.66%. Yes, that is a lot of billions, and there is room for improvement, but that doesn’t mean the entire system is failing: 93% of cases are being covered as intended.
The same could be said with these models. If the spoilage rate is 10%, does that mean the whole system is bad? Or is it at a tolerable threshold?
[1]: https://www.cms.gov/newsroom/fact-sheets/fiscal-year-2024-im...
"Acceptable" thresholds are problem specific. For AI to make a meaningful contribution to protein function prediction, it must do substantially better than current methods, not just better than some arbitrary threshold.
I’m pretty comfortable believing I have probably not committed more than two or three felonies in my life. (Don’t want to find out I am wrong.)
Has a computer scientist cracked any complex system that was not engineered?
"and under “Protecting Scientific Processes,” a statement noting that early termination of extramural awards is prohibited except under certain specific circumstances."
Clearly, this is not a policy that the current administration commits to.
It is designed to, though. That's the thing. The line is arbitrarily drawn at not getting CLI/root access to your iPad.
His point is that over the years, Apple has blurred that line a lot. You can use keyboards and mice. You can do all your daily computing on an iPad - email, spreadsheets, YouTube, whatever.
But it's still locked down, for whatever reason, despite being a perfectly capable computer that doesn't necessarily need to be.
It's honestly really obvious what he's saying. iPads have changed over the last 5 or so years, and people on HN clearly haven't used one in a while. The author isn't _wrong_.
Apple spends all this effort to blur the lines between personal computer and a device you can compute on, and it mildly tricks users who don't necessarily realise there's a difference between the computer and the tablet, especially amongst younger generations who grew up on tablets ("iPad kids").
Contrast this with the NIH, where the science also has a goal - improving human health - but the system to be improved was not engineered. Curing a disease, which has a natural origin, is quite different from improving communications channel capacity.
I suspect that managing engineering research is much more amenable to process analysis than research on biological systems.
Every University’s purported mission is to educate students and advance our collective knowledge together with its students.
That’s it.
If the university makes more money from treating patients than teaching its students, then its mission can’t help but shift.
Likewise if the bulk of the staff are not focused on teaching and educating, then its mission can’t help but shift.
This is a problem.
> That’s it.
Not if the university has a medical school. Virtually all R1 universities with medical schools have a hospital, and a large clinical practice. Most of medical school is an apprenticeship where you treat patients. Medical schools need patients, which means a lot of additional staff.
Likewise, in most fields it is no longer possible to advance knowledge just by going to the library or writing on a white board. Knowledge is advanced through experimentation, and experimental equipment and reagents cost money, and need staff to use and maintain them.
No university (and certainly no medical school), makes enough money in tuition and fees to pay for the education provided, and I seriously doubt that many universities have supported themselves solely through tuition since the beginning of the universities in the middle ages.
You are certainly correct that university deans and presidents have seen their mission shift with the increasing cost of education, and indeed faculty are writing many more grants than they did 75 years ago. So time commitments have shifted. But there is an implication that it could have been some other way -- that the money is there (or could have been there) if some other path were chosen. It is hard for me to imagine where the money might have come from.