We put all our databases on a mapped /data drive that is larger and allocated in the san for this reason. I'm not the sysadmin and the policy isn't mine, but it seems to work....
Chef Scripts. But now that I have Vagrant the fire is out. Seriously. Vagrant is amazing to the point of being nearly a silver bullet like Rails was. Funny thing was, when I first looked at it, I couldn't even figure out why I would want to use it, but now I can't live without it.
I have. That is where I order parts for my 3d printer. Interestingly, you are making op's point because I frequently have to order from other places because as long a tail as Mcmaster-Carr can cover, it doesn't come close to being all that I need. It is essentially a comparison of a long, but finite tail vs. a practicaly infinite one (ie, anything I can create in a cad file).
Having used both Drupal and Rails fairly extensively, I yearn for a Rails CMS with the community and variety of modules in Drupal. I hate doing Drupal development, but from a return on investment prospective, in many use cases, Rails actually loses to Drupal.
In Drupal we can often get 2/3rds of our app for free, which productivity-wise has let us accomplish things in timeframes that would be impossible in Rails.
If something with Drupal's advantages were available within Rails (as an engine or what have you) it would be a clear game-over for other stacks vs. Rails.
> If something with Drupal's advantages were available within Rails (as an engine or what have you) it would be a clear game-over for other stacks vs. Rails.
I have to disagree here. There are clear use cases for either Drupal or Rails. I understand why you yearn for a Ruby Drupal, because dealing with PHP is a hassle, but objectively there is little to be gained since Drupal is already a beast and performance would only be hurt by being ported to Ruby.
Aside from that, the key advantage that Rails or other low-level web frameworks have over Drupal is that they don't make any assumptions beyond the fact that you are using HTTP. With Drupal there is an incredible amount of pre-existing architectural cruft to enable its powerful functionality, but it creates a ton of overhead to deal with as soon as you want to do something that doesn't neatly fit it's paradigm. As soon as you brought something like this into Rails then you'd be defeating the purpose of its simple elegance.
I just don't see any way to separate out the best of both worlds. They have very distinct use cases.
To be clear, I don't want it in Rails core. I want someone to make a framework that can run in Rails where I can pull in giant duplo-blocks of functionality.
> Having used both Drupal and Rails fairly extensively, I yearn for a Rails CMS with the community and variety of modules in Drupal.
Why, if not for religious reasons? Drupal already exists, and there's no compelling business reason to reimplement it in Rails. (otherwise somebody would have done it already)
Because Drupal is a mess. It is like a naturally evolved organism with vestigial organisms and the difficulty in refactoring that comes along with it. The hooks are all global in scope. It all works, but it is all over the place. Using Drupal makes me feel productive, but dirty. And to develop any new functionality the Ruby/Rails stack is much faster. So the reason to want something that marries both is to get fast development for new parts, and giant reusable Duplo's for the repetitive common app parts. If I was religious about these things, I would not be developing in Drupal in the first place... :-)
Interesting theory, but the productivity is almost entirely due to not having to write large blocks of code. For example, in our last project, I didn't have to write an admin interface, users, roles, authentication, tagging, forms and more. The messiness was tangential, not useful.
I think this type of progress is actually extraordinarily bad for humans 1.0. A brain in hardware can grow so much faster and outpace wetware by orders of magnitude. Think of forking subminds to think on decisions research possibilities, and report back.
Should brains like this have any desires that conflict with our needs, we will be in an extraordinary amount of trouble.
We're DECADES away from this being relevant. As a PhD student in neuroscience, there is no one in our field who understands even basic neuroanatomy enough to be able to setup a model that implements cognition or awareness, or even knows what those concepts mean in any sort of operational way.
We can do some cool machine learning, but don't worry about the robopacalypse anytime soon.
I don't disagree with your point about neuroanatomy. But it may well be that true AI is possible via some avenue other than emulation of existing biological intelligence.
As for "DECADES" -- that is a pretty short time, when you have a very large and important research programme ("Friendly AI", some call it) to carry out. If we postpone this research some decades, and then someone makes a breakthrough in AI without ensuring Friendliness, it could be bad news.
Decades from relevance is still terrifying. I will be alive for decades. My kids will be alive for at least any value not better measured in centuries.
If I'm interested in learning more about cognition, should I study neuroscience, or some other field, or is it basically hopeless because no one knows anything important about it?
Would love to hear more of what you say on the subject. I couldn't find your email in your profile but my email is in my profile so if you have time I would definitely hear more about neuroscience over email!
You should wait. I don't work in neuroscience per se, but I am a biologist and I have some friends who are (or have been) neuroscientists. The long and short of it is that the technology and underlying theoretical framework for understanding cognition just aren't in place yet. There's plenty of interesting research being done but the field hasn't had its "quantum leap" yet, as it were. (Examples of this from other fields are Newton's Principia, discovery of DNA structure/Central Dogma of Molecular Biology, etc.).
EDIT: I realized this sounds very discouraging to laymen trying to learn more about science. This was not my intention! By all means, go forth and learn! :) My point was simply that press releases / news often make it seem like science advances at a breakneck pace all the time, whereas reality is that it's fits and starts and often we haven't the slightest clue what we're doing.
The test was run twice and the AI was released both times but the logs of the conversations weren't made public. Also all of the extra protocols weren't in place for either test meaning he could have bought the AI's release.
It's an interesting thought experiment but it's a bit ridiculous that the "tests" are mentioned on the page when they don't have any relevance to the rest of the idea.
I agree with you that there are certainly some risks, so I'm shocked at how little attention the idea of neural interfaces and intelligence augmentation gets, even in a tech savvy place like HN. It seems like the concept is no more pie in the sky sci fi than strong AI, but there seems to be a stigma against even discussing it in a serious manner. It could bring the same benefits to society as strong AI, but mitigate the risks somewhat.
I disagree. The proprietary resins used in printers like formlabs are expensive. The plastic items produced in this manner often lack structural integrity, and they are always small in the lower printer price ranges. So if you want figurines, formlabs is maybe the way to go, but that's about it.
Most of the fused deposition printers (like the MendelMax, AO-100, reprap Prusa (2 and 3) can print in more materials (ABS, PLA, even Polycarbonate), and produce larger functional parts than things like FormLabs. The main issue is the striping, which is less "pretty."
I don't think striping is the main issue - It's the lack of repeatability. Because of patents on things like heated build chambers, it's hard to get consistent, dimensional parts off hobby machines. If you have access to one of the higher priced Stratasys systems, I agree that FDM is competitive.
Formlabs technology works much better at the low prices. While their resins are proprietary, when you factor in the cost of wasted plastic (and time) due to failed print jobs, it's not bad.
And Formlabs, and stereolithography based systems generally, have many benefits beyond figurines. Consumer electronics shells are much better suited to that format. As are most designs that have undercuts or voided internal geometries. They can also produce parts in a variety of materials, e.g. wax for jewelry castings.
I'm all for the experimentation and low cost machines, but they're far closer to toy than tool.
It depends what you are doing. Agreed, tuning does add work and makes repeatability more of a challenge, but that comes with tradeoffs--the ability to print in more mediums (chocolate!).
I'd be uncomfortable using formlabs type resin parts for anything with load or wear, using them within machines, joints for a table, replacements for dishwasher parts, etc. I can't print anything of size with formlabs type printers. If I want to make a quadcopter body, or a modern-art lamp, I'm SOL. You have valid points--just are valuing use-cases differently than I do.
Would the reduced chance of success of a single founder startup be compensated for by the reduction in investment, time required and increased number of companies that could be funded? Even if you think single founders succeed only half as often, having twice as many with no founder breakup issues could put YC ahead.
Very generous. I especially like the mit-ish license. I have this theory that permissive licensing will produce more goodwill and credibility. Hope I'm right!
