tclmeelmo
Joined 10 years ago
Karma
264
Submissions
100
Member since
Feb 19
I have donkey brains.
View on Hacker NewsRecent submissions
Comment · 10 years ago
Someone on Youtube had what I thought was a clever solution: a piece of trim (looked like shoe molding) to bridge the 1" step. Cheap, and they claimed 100% effective.
Comment · 10 years ago
IIRC, the HP-15C used LU decomposition in its matrix math routines.
Comment · 10 years ago
> It also is very sensitive to resistance, to the point that I actually had to construct ramps for my car to climb the 1-inch lip at the entrance to my garage, otherwise it would stop at that point and refuse to go further.
The pictures of the car in a article linked elsewhere in this discussion (https://www.ksl.com/?sid=39727592&nid=148&title=utah-man-say...) show that the windshield was smashed. I'm finding it challenging to reconcile your personal example with the images of the smashed windshield; in my own experience, it takes some effort to break laminated safety glass. I would think (perhaps wrongly) that it would take more effort to break safety glass than would be stopped by a 1in. step.
> but I don't think there's much room to discuss safety here.
I couldn't disagree more. I don't understand why it should be possible to disable any safety interlock (at least, that's how I'm interpreting the feature description) in a consumer product, especially persistently.
Comment · 10 years ago
It would also seem possible for a spouse or other alternate driver of the car to have disabled those safeguards.
Comment · 10 years ago
This feature has me wondering what the SAE standards for automatic transmissions have to say on the matter, if anything?
I'm not familiar with them, nor do I have access, but I'm hoping someone here might be helpful on either aspect. Specifically, I'm wondering if the standards for automatic transmission controls recommend against having the Park setting do anything beyond activating the parking pawl and parking brake (when electronically controlled).
Comment · 10 years ago
I am under the impression that they were experienced in IT but inexperienced in biomedical investments.
Comment · 10 years ago
This is really interesting. Do you know of anyone using it in production?
Comment · 10 years ago
An interesting question for me is, what will be the effect on wellness startups doing things like Fitbit or Soylent? I have no idea.
Comment · 10 years ago
Experienced investors aren't going to invest much if the science isn't on a good foundation. Even if they would, that's a pretty expensive way to fund research: it's cheaper to fund it by grants or through revenue.
Comment · 10 years ago
I would predict that it depends on where the money is coming from.
For VC firms that are experienced in the biomedical space, Theranos changes nothing because they were already suspicious of Theranos.
For firms that are inexperienced in the biomedical space, they have hopefully learned that growth cannot compensate for flaws in science or technology. If they continue to invest in biomedical, they will be much more careful in their DD; or perhaps they lose their appetite for biomedical and leave entirely.
I don't think things have changed for biomedical startups that are based on good science and technology and have an experienced team.
What would be wonderful is if the media learned a lesson from this mess. As I see it, they were a passenger in the Theranos hype machine.