mdevere
Joined 12 years ago
Joined 12 years ago
Glad to see that Shared Albums are now full resolution!
Now, please:
1. Allow us to edit the photo order of the Shared Album (instead of the order that the photos were added to it). Currently, my wedding unfolds in the wrong order, and my kid turns 6 months old before being born.
2. Fix identification/clean-up of duplicates.
3. Give us a way to tidy up facial recognition.
4. Allow us to join "best quality possible" collectives, which will replace our poor-quality photos with higher-quality originals from somebody else's library.
There is a very active landscape of people developing/validating 'biomarkers' for neurological and psychiatric disorders and developing drugs specifically for those populations with the biomarker present; this news is far from extraordinary.
The real news is when these reach FDA approval.
I'd love to know what others do to maximise both convenience and security.
For two-factor authentication, I wouldn't use the same service for both layers. Seems daft to use Bitwarden as both the password keeper and the TOTP provider. Not sure if that's a cryptographically coherent view, but hey.
I use Backblaze to backup everything to cloud.
Most important thing is having a consistent filenaming convention. This helps you find files via search. I use 'YYMMDD_HHMM name' if I authored the file or 'YYMMDD_HHMM [sender] name' if someone emailed it to me.
Tangentially, what I'm really happy with is how I manage my web bookmarks. I don't use browser bookmarks or folders. I save bookmarks to Pinboard.in, a cloud service. Then there's a nice Alfred extension which allows me to find them (http://www.packal.org/workflow/alfred-pinboard).
Clinical science is inundated with well-reasoned "potential leads". Ideas for targets, and even designing drugs to interact with those targets in the desired way, is not the bottleneck. Hasn't been for decades. The bottleneck is in clinical development i.e. human trials.
There are many many AI drug discovery companies out there, many of them very well funded, and ALL of them with no shortage of "potential leads".
These companies usually start out with the idea that their potential leads are better than the alternatives (generally because they cast a much bigger net/ considered more screening criteria than a human could, thanks to AI) and that big pharma will pay them license fees.
And yet, all of those companies, pretty much without exception, have turned into drug development companies themselves. They are forced to develop their own "potential leads" into actual approved drugs. And they are subject to the same timelines, same costs and - so far - the same probabilities of success as any other drug developer.
PerturbAI & OpenAI's "potential leads" might be better or worse than the next AI company. I would guess worse, given there is zero proprietary data involved and no clarity about why the underlying models are going to generate insightful findings. Either way, not useful.