I'm not saying Car-T doesn't work for certain diseases, more that it's too complex and too expensive to operationalize and unsustainable to bring to mass-market. It may prove successful as a one-off for individual rich single-payer patients but cell therapy companies fail left and right because they repeatedly can't operationalize the treatment into a sustainable business model. It has promising data and potential for transformational results, sure just too many challenges exist thus far for anyone to demonstrate durability bringing an actual treatment to market without major technological and economic advancements. The infrastructure & manufacturing is too intense, it's just not a scalable business.
As an engineer, I can confirm that this AI (if it works well) would compress the prototyping stage significantly, resulting in a better product at reduced cost.
> also coming up with the plausible load paths and deciding on the geometry of the parts according to the actual loads
> As a result, there's hardly any overtaking unless an egregious mistake is made. The lame solution they have to this is to allow cars one second behind to mechanically reduce their drag in selected spots of the track (DPS).
We've had some of the highest overtakes per season in recent years. Tracks like Monaco have always made for low overtakes, but DRS has been a great addition. Overtaking in F1 is difficult because of the dirty air from the car ahead, which has only gotten worse with improved aero, not because the cars are wider. Yes, DRS only reduces drag, but it's a necessary counterbalance to the turbulence. I believe it results in a true slipstream effect, which is exactly what you would have without the dirty air.
Got it. So GitHub uses Atlassian's white-label status service. Though, I wouldn't expect a white-label service to leak branding from the service provider. Especially considering customization is one of the paid perks of the higher tiers, which I assume GitHub is in.
The author may not know C. As OP said, it's definitely the case that people interested in Zig may not have any interest in going through C first. They may eventually have to, as Zig interfaces heavily with C code and libs, but there's nothing wrong with going Zig first.
> Effect of fasting on cancer: A narrative review of scientific evidence
> Emerging evidence suggests that fasting could play a key role in cancer treatment by fostering conditions that limit cancer cells' adaptability, survival, and growth. Fasting could increase the effectiveness of cancer treatments and limit adverse events. Yet, we lack an integrated mechanistic model for how these two complicated systems interact, limiting our ability to understand, prevent, and treat cancer using fasting. Here, we review recent findings at the interface of oncology and fasting metabolism, with an emphasis on human clinical studies of intermittent fasting. We recommend combining prolonged periodic fasting with a standard conventional therapeutic approach to promote cancer-free survival, treatment efficacy and reduce side effects in cancer patients.
> The following innovation that made it usable, by making it less bug-prone, was called a "multitasking operating system". The so-called "OS" allowed you to write simple sequential code, but used the computer efficiently by switching back and forth between multiple tasks as their respective I/Os completed. We're talking about the introduction of the Univac 1103A in 01953, 72 years ago, and the following 20 years of innovations, including things like Dijkstra's THE operating system.
That is, asynchronous I/O is 20 years older than the Unix system call interface this article speculates it should replace.
That's just a scheduler though, and not necessarily an actor-oriented one. Multitasking doesn't imply communication between tasks, certainly not actor-oriented bidirectional message passing.
Yes, I agree. Something similar is why I don't think it's accurate to describe this article as being about actors: it's not about schedulers, but it's about asynchronous I/O, which is equally well not the same thing as actors, though scheduling and asynchronous I/O both have very interesting relationships with actors, which the article unfortunately does not go beyond vaguely gesturing at.
Sorry, but you are first changing "what the article is about" to something that the article is not, in fact, about, and then criticizing this thing that you just made up.
> I don't think it's accurate to describe this article as being about actors
So the article says it is about actors. It says it is about messaging, it certainly is about asynchronous messaging, and you even agree that io_uring is an asynchronous message queue.
In what way is the article not about a connection between actors and io_uring?
This is what I mean when I write that you are changing what the article is about. It is about this: asynchronous messaging/actors.
It may not go into a lot of depth about that connection, but it clearly is about it. And it may be wrong to focus on this. It may be wrong in how it describes it. But you cannot claim that it is about something else.
2. You:
> it's not about schedulers
Yes. And? Why does an article showing the connection between a general concept of asynchronous messaging (actors) and a specific instance of asynchronous messaging (io_uring) have to be "about" schedulers?
Please don't answer, it is rhetorical question.
3. You:
> but it's about asynchronous I/O
This is where you actually do the change. No: it is not about asynchronous I/O (in general). It is about an asynchronous messaging interface to I/O. Not the same thing. At all.
Once again, maybe you think it should be about this topic instead. And maybe you are even right that it should be about this (I don't think that's the case). But even if you were right that it should be about this other topic, you are not free to claim that it is about this other topic, when it clearly is not.
4. You:
> Asynchronous I/O completion notification was a huge innovation, ...
> But don't try to sell asynchronous I/O as a "game-changing" paradigm shift...
That's where you criticize the article for the thing you made up that it should be about, but is not. The article is not even about asynchronous I/O in general at all, never mind trying to sell asynchronous I/O as anything. It is talking about messaging, the fact that you can regard io_uring_sqe as a message and the submission and completion queues as message queues. Yielding something that's roughly equivalent to (some version of) the Actor model.
> I would love to figure out how to run in a way that builds up my motivational reserve rather than constantly depleting it, but that method, if it exists, has escaped me.
Do you like music? Uptempo music? I run with a playlist designed to match my cadence at the various stages of my run. I get my endorphin rush from the combination of the run and the music.
Moreover, when a kid is perpetually glued to a screen absorbed in a group chat, they are much less likely to interact with others who are physically around them and ever develop any actual mates.
https://lupus.bmj.com/content/11/Suppl_1/A109