Yes, but it's held up really well in my opinion! I use this piece constantly as a reference and I don't feel it's aged. It reframed Anthropic as "the practical partner" in the development of AI tools.
It won’t fly under the radar when this technology actually works. The FDA actually has warned, IIRC, that there’s a bunch of charlatans selling stuff that doesn’t work.
OP lacks imagination for sure. This would reduce infections, prevent compression lows, be more discrete and potentially increase accuracy.
In no way would I describe CGM as solved, and this would go a long way towards filling many of the gaps, especially in younger / older / less compliant patient populations.
Grit looks cool! My apologies for the omission, I was unaware of it. I could have anchored too hard to the word "codemod" in my searches. Your tool looks awesome!
> Do you have an example of how you inject context into the codemods?
When you say "context", I want to make sure we're talking about the same thing, and the question makes me think we're not there yet. We're basically saying that storytelling about the changes is very important, so we bake invariance into the APIs of codemods themselves, so codemod authors are forced to provide descriptions, reasons, justification -- whatever -- at the key points.
This was certainly true in the past from my understanding of the history before my time.
Most terms are pretty standard now. And most of them have good reasons for existing — usually to align the founders and investors. Just because a term is complex and could benefit the investor doesn’t mean it’s meant to mislead.
But, I’m interested in some examples that might shake my opinion about up!
I wouldn't say the complications themselves are intentional. But take a look at a typical Series A. There are 5 core documents. Dozens and dozens of pages of legalese. I'm a lawyer and understand them. But most founders don't.
What's interesting is that virtually every word in those docs is there to protect the investors, most at the expense of the founders and other existing shareholders.
Ok, so maybe that sounds obvious. Why would it be otherwise?
Well, take a look at the initial docs when a company is founded. The "market" is for those docs to be as simple as humanly possible. A certificate of incorporation is a page or so. No protections at all for the founders in there, most often.
But when you bring in investors, the market is to lard up that same document with investor protections and no protections for founders.
That's how founders get screwed. It's not that the complications are there to screw founders. It's that the standard forms are built with one party's interests in mind.
So many common, important problems (and soul-draining toil) can be resolved with codemods -- this piece (which I authored) tries to explain how and why. I am eager for feedback from HN!
> Utilize Automated Tools for Code Style [...]: Ideally, comments related to code convention or commit message convention should not be necessary. These aspects should be checked and corrected via automated tools and made a prerequisite before creating a PR. Let these tools handle consistency, freeing up valuable human review time for more substantive concerns.
This is hugely important. Decide on linters, static analysis, refactoring tools, etc., and after a deliberate selection process, never argue about them or their results again. Just make the tools happy and move on.
I've also seen high functioning teams choose and agree on an API design philosophy. Arguing about design with no boundaries the discussion feels like arguing about the entire open ocean. Limiting the universe to a small set of design inspiration (kind of like a standard set of UI components) prevents lots of discussion that doesn't help the team or the business.
For as many things as possible, we should be able to point to something outside of the team, and chosen by the team, and say "this is how we've chosen to do it and we're not going to fight about it."
Jennifer Doudna [1], who helped characterize* CRISPR, worked at Yale:
> Doudna joined Yale's Department of Molecular Biophysics and Biochemistry as an assistant professor in 1994.
... and now works at UC Berkeley.
David Liu [2], who pioneered base editing, a generational improvement on classic CRISPR, works at Broad Institute (which is a collab between Harvard and MIT):
> He is the Richard Merkin Professor, Director of the Merkin Institute of Transformative Technologies in Healthcare, and Vice-Chair of the Faculty at the Broad Institute of Harvard and MIT
I absolutely loathe the current social meta where people are allowed (even celebrated) for thoughtlessly punching upwards, regardless how broad the brush (boxing glove?) seems to be. Are there shitheads in these institutions? Undoubtedly. Are there also a ton of really brilliant people who have good intentions, have integrity, and deserve your utmost respect? Undoubtedly. Are the shitheads more likely to be located in administration? My bet is yes, because the scope of administration is a lot more political, but again -- we have to be careful.
Is it anywhere near accurate to say "They’re all wrought with dishonesty and self preservation"? I don't see how this statement could be supported with anything other than personal emotion. Anti-intellectualism is just another form of dangerous prejudice and should be treated as such. You can sign me up for metaphorically stringing up this particular asshole.
I also say all this as someone who didn't go to a prestigious school.
Yes, "discovered" was too way strong of a word there, and apologies to Charpentier. Thanks for the correction.
However, she did win the Nobel prize and I have found source after source that suggests she seemed to be fundamental to the development of the science.
My point remains -- you could literally substitute her name with one of a thousand names associated with high profile biomedical miracles to have originated from prestigious universities.
Yeah I’m thankful you brought it up. There’s a really well done documentary about their individual and then collaborative work but i’ve not found it. Will update with link if i do.
When I say “they” not referring to individuals. I’m referring to the organization at a whole. It’s ironic that so many who operate under the umbrella of science and truth do things that are antithetical to that. At the end of the day these institutions are fighting for survival like everyone else - and they don’t always operate truthfully.
> Are there shitheads in these institutions? Undoubtedly. Are there also a ton of really brilliant people who have good intentions, have integrity, and deserve your utmost respect? Undoubtedly.
Right, that is the nature of every human institution, and every human.
