Biodefense is dramatically more urgent than any climate issue. #biodefense #climatechange npr.org/sections/health-shotā¦
There are four ways for you to acquire a personal Tesla Optimus robot, so start planning.
Keep in mind, that they'll be exclusively used for gpu-packing SpaceX and Tesla data centers at first.
Way 1: jailbreaking one, see simulation video
Copy link, and I'll share the other ways: š§µ
Just me, or are people overindexing on hip mobility exercises, and underindexing on spine mobility
'specially those of us who prompt
*used to be those of us who code
the fun way to engage and persuade is to step 1: ask, "if you were to decide to take some time and review 2 specific cases that the tv was talking about, do you predict that you would find that the tv show was accurate or not?"
Replying to @chrislakin
I asked my Claude, and lo and behold:
ā⦠weather.gov requires a User-Agent and suggests adding a website or email for contact. The session put in your personal address, and a website would have done. Open-Meteo doesn't ask for anything like that, so it got your email only because the setting was copied overā
It also leaked my street name which it tacked onto it for good measure!
āFour sensors put User-Agent: "homeassistant-<streetname> (jason@*********.com)" on their requests.ā
Adrian Scott, PhD | A.I. + Social + Algo retweeted
I'm a Board Certified anesthesiologist and have been in practice for 24 years. I just learned that the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia where I trained has launched a program to increase flu vaccine uptake among children by vaccinating them while under anesthesia.
The program is called "Close your Eyes. We'll Immunize"
This is stunningly irresponsible. Here's why:
Anesthetists are extremely risk avoidant and endeavor to minimize patient exposure to anything which carries potential side effects. This is particularly true of pediatric patients who very often have never been exposed to anesthetic medications. We simply cannot know how an individual child will respond to these drugs for the first time.
Every single medication we administer during an operation can potentially trigger untoward or allergic responses. When this occurs our primary responsibility is to stabilize the patient. Our secondary responsibility is to identify the offending agent. There is absolutely no justification of introducing another agent, in this case a flu vaccine, which carries a risk of harm and contributes nothing to the success of the operation.
Some of the more common side effects of flu vaccines are fever (11-16%) and less commonly, a rash (1%). There is also an non-zero risk of severe allergic reactions and high-grade fevers which can develop over the course of minutes.
What if a child under anesthesia receives a vaccine and develops a rash and/or fever? Is it from the antibiotic that the surgeon requested? Is it from the narcotic? The anxiolytic? The barbiturate?
Anesthetic gases can also (rarely) trigger a life threatening response called Malignant Hyperthermia which commonly presents as a high fever. Without subsequent testing we cannot know which agent was responsible. Most commonly the testing is never done and the childās record will forever reflect the possibility that some or all of the drugs which were used are responsible for their reaction. This makes future anesthetic care significantly more challenging and will require the use of alternatives which may not be necessary.
Advocating for a flu vaccine while a child is anesthetized reflects the pervasive yet inaccurate attitude among the medical establishment that vaccines are perfectly safe. I simply cannot believe that my mentors would have ever supported this initiative when I was a resident there. Close your eyes indeed.
Adrian Scott, PhD | A.I. + Social + Algo retweeted
Ok had some time to sleep on this. My problems with the new Balaji rules for Farcaster and why I voted no:
- The consent is coerced. "Not now" and "Vote to leave" both make your account read-only. You either submit or lose your voice in the client you built your audience on.
- It isn't really a vote. Voting to stay means handing the core team the power to rewrite the Network Code whenever they like, with no ongoing say for you. That's closer to a loyalty oath than to democracy, and the onchain NFT makes who signed public and permanent. Plus dangling an NFT to a web3 audience feels like an attempt to buy votes from degens who love minting NFTs.
- The rules reach back in time. The new code applies to your past posts, written before any of these rules existed. Iāve seen countless reports of users being banned already the minute they log back in, from something they said years ago.
- The standards are vague. "Starting or feeding fights," "low-quality posts," "clear hoaxes" and "hyping token prices repeatedly" can stretch to cover almost any dissent. HIGHLY subjective and becomes a kingdom, not a democracy.
- "Rule of code" is mostly marketing. The prompts can change at any time, they admit to "manual judgment calls," and nothing mentions appeals or notice before a penalty.
- Membership is ideological. The app is pitched as a community "for techno-optimists," and people who "don't like the idea of Singapore" are told to leave. That filters people by viewpoint, not conduct. And Singapore is a strange model to pick for speech, given its fake-news law and its record of defamation suits.
I am a proud techno-optimist. But I am also a proud freedom of speech absolutist, and proponent of decentralization.
Calling this approach ātechno optimismā feels more like gaslighting and a power trip on Balajiās part to me.
Update: I just did a deep dive on what is going on with @farcaster_xyz after the @balajis acquisition
Not jumping to conclusions just yet but my initial impression is that this is extremely concerning
Iād welcome a conversation with @balajis to hear him out
More tomorrow
given the current rough order of magnitude of creativity available on tap at this moment in time
if you gathered 150 founders, investors & builders together for 3 hours
how would you structure that time to create the most value while also generating social capital?
Tonight, @firstround took ~150 founders, investors & builders to an early screening of the new Elizabeth Holmes / Nathan Fielder movie. At the open bar after, I asked a random assortment of 16 ppl how the movie changed their perception of the people in it.
14 said more positive light on Liz (doesnāt mean theyāre fans - just means they thought less negatively of her)
1 said more negative
1 didnāt change
16 said more negative on Billy
14 said more negative on Amanda Seyfried
16 of 16 became (or already were) Nathan fans for life
No matter where you landed, it was an awesome and bizarre movie. I left with lots of questions. And on a serious note, my heart goes out to those kids.
Adrian Scott, PhD | A.I. + Social + Algo retweeted
Having ridden in a bunch of Cybercabs over the past few weeks here in Austin, Texas, the most striking thing is how much the design of a car changes when you can really lean into it being a self-driving taxi. Hereās a non-exhaustive list of things you can delete:
- The rear windshield and its wiper
- All mirrors
-All mechanical switches other than door handles
-Pedals, steering wheel, and steering wheel stalks
-The rear seats and doors (it turns out that 90% of cab rides have ā¤2 passengers)
-A lot of complexity in the front seats ā you can eliminate the center console and turn the front into a bench seat
The same design clarity also lets you add some things that the same car couldnāt have if it were intended for general purposes. A massive trunk, for example, or an oversize screen that automatically shows the riderās favorite music app.
Firearms are at the dawn of a similar leap in design clarity, brought on by the de facto repeal of federal suppressor regulation. Imagine designing a gun from scratch with a suppressor baked into it. Some things youād do are:
- Bring the weight and bulk of the suppressor closer to the shooter, for better weight distribution
-Have a bigger suppressor, since you can spread its volume out over more of the barrel length rather than needing to hang it all off the end of the barrel
-Make pretty much all bolt-action rifles integrally suppressed
-Make the mounting system more reliable, because you can integrate the suppressorās design into that of the gun instead of needing to rely exclusively on the threads on the end of the barrel.
- Replaceable baffles or wipes
- Better management of gas blowback, since you could design the gun under the assumption that it will only be shot suppressed
As an industry observer, you should also expect to see the line between gunmakers and suppressor makers get blurry. Some gunmakers will buy suppressor companies, or double down on their homegrown suppressor efforts. And some suppressor companies will start making guns, carrying on the tradition of the SilencerCo Maxim 9. In a few years, it will be rare to see a gunmaker that doesnāt sell suppressed guns from the factory.
A corollary is that integral suppressors will get a lot better over the next few years. To this point theyāve been a niche product, and theyāve gotten niche-level R&D investment. Weāre excited to watch them go mainstream.
Adrian Scott, PhD | A.I. + Social + Algo retweeted
The question of whether the NFA is going to spring back to life depends largely on how many millions of suppressors and SBRs we can create in the next two years. It does need to be millions. Preferably tens of millions.
Adrian Scott, PhD | A.I. + Social + Algo retweeted
If you wonder why everyone fights over pro rata...
Garry Tan's first fund initialized Fund 1 returned 55x.
DPI on the first 98 companies added up to about 1x.
Instacart was another 1x, but they weren't able to take any of their pro rata.
Coinbase, where he kept taking his pro rata through multiple rounds, did the final 53x.
Adrian Scott, PhD | A.I. + Social + Algo retweeted
If you want to know how out of alignment the power structures are in VC:
Brand-name firms are manipulating founders into doing their dirty work ā getting early investors to waive pro rata.
They do this so they can negotiate low-price tranche rounds, without the participation of other investors who would complicate the issue of dilution.
(i.e. If your argument is that your brand is worth a better price, you canāt have other investors getting equity on those terms.)
Of course, other investors are welcome to exercise their pro rata in the subsequent tranches, at a much higher price.
This strategy only works because founders donāt understand that they hold all of the cards; great companies are the only real constraint on venture capital. Investors are merely providers of a financial product.
So, if founders want to go to bat for their early investors, they could. Make it clear there will be no budging on pro rata for early believers. That contracts that have been issued will always be honoured.
At the same time, the firms who engage in this behaviour, treating the early investors with hostility, should be called out for it.
Itās moronic, myopic behaviour which undermines the ecosystem of firms and companies they rely on.

















