This may be way more than what a normal person has available.

What's the maximum time between 'sessions' to count as deliberate practice? Even sportspeople have rest days.

I understand the point in an intuitive way, but I wonder how come companies can be run by managers, and it's only some that fail?

There's always the question, perhaps AirBnB without their founders would be twice as successful.

I believe in essence it comes down to copy/pasting models and frameworks without embracing a changing culture and landscape. Distributed teams across the globe is a relatively new phenomenon. The number of clients a company may have has not been seen earlier. Facebook has billions of users and probably millions of customers across the globe.

Amazon builds and sells hardware (Kindle), rents cloud space, and has a two-sided marketplace for random goods, in some cases managing inventory.

These are new types of companies that require new types of management. OKR's were useful decades ago, can still be used as a copy/paste model?

OK, a bit of intellectual honesty here.

Is this not similar to the football analogy? There's an extremely low chance of getting into the billion's range, we are just exposed to a large survivorship bias.

Imposing this believe benefits incubators and VC's the most, since they hedge the risks by working on multiple startups simultaneously. Entrepreneurs don't get this chance.

El Jardín de los Senderos que se Bifurcan.

After reading the short story once more, I can't see how it relates to this context beyond the title. Sure, it's a garden and has paths, but the ideas behind it have nothing to do with how we build knowledge, it is all about how we perceive time and potentially how we interpret the many-worlds theory.

Does this mean there is growth? What does recapitulate mean in this context?

Who?

And even if we are physically next to another person, our experience will be individualized. We don't know what other people see, nor we can be sure we are looking at each other.

This describes exactly what frustrates me the most about online discussions. Especially on Twitter, it is so hard to build coherence on previous (and future) insight.

What is this?

I think this is exactly what Hegel meant by Aufhebung, just that technologically speaking there was no concrete way of showing it.

Overall, without a focusing mechanism, nor correction for the misalignment between the excitation and detection path, I don't see how this device works if not out of sheer luck.

Is this robust enough for a microscope?

Would have been great to have a number here.

In the text they use binning of 100us, and autocorrelations down to 10us, I don't get where this 1kHz comes from.

In my understanding, there is no way of correcting for misalignment between excitation and detection paths. I think the authors do not measure the PSF of this system as to actually be able to conclude anything about the quality (nor the focal volume they are observing).

The idea is to collimate the beam that was made divergent and then use this same lens as tube lens before the filters.

But it removes the pinhole as well, which has a function beyond extending the optical path.

A pity that this is provided as a labview file and there's no description of how it works. I couldn't check what the algorithm does

What figure is 'low cost'? Few thousands on the objective, another couple on the detector. Without counting licensing for the software (Matlab and LabView). Is it worth the trouble compared to a normal epi-fluorescence microscope? Does this perform better than an Amscope?

I don't see this device has any dampening mechanism. Can it be used on a desk without showing the vibrations on the signal?

What if it would be groups of trusted authors instead of a single one? For example, within a company, research community, etc. Perhaps public, but invite-only editing/publishing.

It must be pointed out that Bush was talking about the work of scientists, and in publications the citing mechanism works bidirectionally now a days. You know who cited a given article and build the tree.

It is crucial to have an open standard, and I think the people from indieweb already did a lot of the work. Webmentions are just the communication layer, but. microformats may be a great tool to keep in mind.

Thinking about Git repositories, this is how submodules work. you 'freeze' the 'transclusion' to one exact commit and can update if and when needed. Moreover, the contents are stored within the local repository, so they are future-proof.

Nice that you have this added by default ;-)

I also considered webmentions for transclusions, but more appropriately it's microformats that would allow proper, bi-directional transcluion of text.

And here a neologism that never got to be used as it deserved.

This is not exactly true, and I believe it was not true at the time, of how libraries arrange information, Dewey

I wonder if these remarks are previous to the standard library arrangement that we use today.

Just ask Steven Wolfram about this

And yet, this is what most programmers fail to do.

This is one of the most important aspects of the essay. Noting that he is continuously talking about the work of a scientist, he stresses the act of recording, of looking at reality. This is radically different from what Ahrens claims in his book "How to take Smart Notes", in which there is not a single hint to the fact that you must look through the window and not just into previous works.

I would love to understand what he means.

This is a very valid argument in the context of the essay. He is not only exploring validity of technical developments, but the commercial viability. Mass production lower costs, but if not many people care about something, it will not be mass produced. However, machines to perform operations few people care about exist. Therefore...

This is the inverse of the story of the GPU, but very relatable to the space industry.

WHAAAT?

This is the point that should have been developed further. There is a role for PhD/Postdoc positions that develop technologies that the market would not have developed by themself.

State-incentivized pursue of STEM fields may be rooted in this notion, of generating higher value. The question is who absorbs the risk. Are individuals (the PhD candidate) or governments? And who reaps the benefits (corporations?)

Opportunity cost or actual debt?

Must check what this is

This is a general concept, the rest of the article extrapolates the idea to the act of reading. This may be a stretch, since it implies that whatever can be broken into parts will belong to the hermeneutic circle, while this only applies to interpreting (text)

This is the only useful idea in the text. Whatever we read has the context in which it was written and the context in whcih it is being read. Is this a hermeneutic circle as described earlier? Don't think so.

This is exactly the opposite of what Luhmann was doing (he only read things once)

A week has 168 hours, if you sleep 56 hours a week, and work 40, and commute 10, you still get 62 hours if your wake time for something else. How you spend them is up to you.

Facebook is creating a toxic environment, now pushing the idea of groups towards users faces. What output is the platform expecting?

If this happens in Ireland, how many are going to be unnoticed?

This is the story of how Facebook tried and failed at moderating content. The article cites many sources (employees) that were tasked with flagging posts according to platform policies. Things started to be complicated when high-profile people (such as Trump) started posting hate speech on his profile.

Moderators have no way of getting honest remarks from Facebook. Moreover, they are badly treated and exploited.

The article cites examples from different countries, not only the US, including extreme right groups in the UK, Bolsonaro in Brazil, the massacre in Myanmar, and more.

In the end, the only thing that changes Facebook behavior is bad press.

This is not what will happen later on

This is only possible while value is created somewhere else. 'Passion economy' is a priviledged economy.

This is a problem of regulation and the view of uber as an employer and not as a platform.

This argument circles back to the idea of "doing what you love"

No clear what this research is