For now we support categorization, transcription, and phone calls (which are each pretty broad categories and can be used for a wide variety of tasks). You can see our docs here: http://docs.scaleapi.com/
We're intentionally releasing endpoint by endpoint in a way that we can ensure our members can perform the tasks efficiently while also providing a ton of flexibility to the developer. Our end goal, of course, is to allow developers to do basically anything.
Although I understand her point, what else does she recommend that is an immediate solution for women dealing with immediate problems? Of course re-education or somehow restructuring the sexual arms race that results in aggressive males is the correct long-term solution, but what else would someone answer that isn't let's change an entire generation and the system?
The comments in this thread seem to suggest a reasonable subset of people here partake. Is there any reason you feel the need to?
I went to a pretty rough college where I had standard 24 hour straight homework sessions once or twice a week. And I used caffeine maybe once a week at most. I work at a startup where the work culture isn't as competitive as what I feel is the norm, but even listening to friends at there does not seem to be such a ridiculous need for overclocking yourself.
I just seem to have never done work that was hard enough to push me to require drugs, and it's not because I haven't done hard work. Most work seems to be either you just put in the 40 hours it takes to solve it or it hasn't been solved.
There are a few reasons why someone would abuse Adderall.
One of the first reasons that sticks out to me is that it motivates you to get things done, especially things that would otherwise be boring and repetitive. For example, something like fixing formatting errors in 100,000 lines code.
As for why you never felt the need to use it, my guess is that maybe you're more secure with yourself than some other people.
There's an incredible push to become "successful" these days (partly due to social media I guess), so I can see why some people resort to Adderall to give themselves a leg up.
Of course, I’m talking about people who don’t have ADHD and are taking it simply to augment their performance.
But have you tried using amphetamines while working? Perhaps you don't know what you're really capable of. I know people that are fine, happy, productive. But on speed, they are amazed at how much more capable they are.
Apart from psychosis or heart issues, why should anyone settle for being less powerful?
For me, dependency and increased expectations. If I have to take drugs to succeed, then I'm stuck taking drugs throughout my career.
The earlier in a career, the worse of a problem this is. Which is why I think doing this as a student to enhance academic performance is a particularly bad idea. You're in school to prove to yourself and others what you're capable of. Doing so with drugs that you're not willing to take for the rest of your life is only lying to yourself.
I can't cope with boredom. It feels like a prolonged low intensity panic attack to me. I will do almost anything to avoid it. In a work environment that includes making bad choices merely to avoid putting myself in situations where I might have to do boring things. I think ADHD is actually under diagnosed and a lot of people would be happier if they were taking medication for it. That's probably the reason the people this article cites are trying to self medicate for it. If it wasn't a problem they wouldn't be looking for a solution.
I'm prescribed Adderall. While being treated for depression my doctor identified it as something that might be helpful for me.
Contrary to the sentiment that these medications are just some kind of super energy drink, I find regular therapeutic use actually leads to less work hours and reduced stress for me.
I completely agree with the implied valuation, but had slight pause as to what this money could be used for.
I think Snapchat has had mild success with monetizing Discover and Stories. However, I think correct course of action is moving from a incentivizing content distribution role to incentivizing content creation role. For example creating partnerships. What you have right now are middling ready to explode and fame driven celebrities like YouTube had before partnership incentives. Snapchat is exactly there in their timeline.
Why isn't this a licensing deal to established content deliverers? It seems to only alleviate provider cost. If this actually does solve a problem, why wouldn't they just work on getting Netflix to buy into it?
Cost has totally different determinants at different scales. At the smallest scales, fixed costs overwhelm variable costs. As you scale up and architectural needs change, there are steps in the cost function. Just because something is cost effective at one scale doesn't mean it's cost effective at all scales.
Personally, I think peer to peer streaming is most interesting for open source projects. You can host static code for free and then use something like this to do streaming. The developer pays nothing, and bandwidth fees are born entirely by the user.
I was just bringing this up as a possible thing the other day at work. It was always weird to me how marketed breakfast was. The irrational vitriol I received only further convinced me how much breakfast (specifically grains heavy) is due to marketing.
There's this idea that markets just discover and serve peoples' wants and preferences. It has to be tempered with the fact that our perceptions and even our identities are shaped by the information we are served with from birth. In this era, culture serves capital as much as capital serves culture.
Caffeine too. People are proud of how addicted they are. I used to get headaches from it, I think a lot of people do, and there was just this wtf moment of "why do I abuse this stuff"? Great PR.
I think gp means if caffeine and tobacco was included in the list of drugs the "war on drugs" would end because nobody would enforce it, thereby legalizing everything.
Of course this won't happen and I think that is to a certain degree a good thing.
Someone who knows more should prove me wrong, but...
Intuitively shouldn't a dedicated plant's machinery have much higher efficiency? Coupling that with the biggest problems of recycling being the combined energy costs of transportation and processing, this seems to not solve anything?
It kind of solves only one leg of the transportation, but the final recycled plastic will still need to be transported. That's again assuming costs of transportation are linear with respect to number of sources (but I don't think that's true...). And assuming same thing about processing energy efficiency, this does worse with the processing energy part.
Yes, but it's not all about processing efficiency. I'm sure lack of availability is mentioned, especially where there isn't money or population density
In the states, we could use it in a different way; to encourage community. If nobody recycles their goods, industrial processes can't help. Watching these machines and immediately building a new thing out of them really drives home the usefulness of recycling. It's 'cool' to watch and fun to do.
I grew up in Houston, Texas; some people recycled sometimes, but most people I knew (in affluent areas, so plenty of waste and education) just didn't care. My college apartment complex didn't have recycling at all despite a center within 10 minutes.
Our fathers mostly worked in oil / fossil fuels, where environmentalists block critical infrastructure for both good and inane reasons. (One inane example, a small town refused to allow an increase in the throughput of a natural gas pipe extending along a river; this put it at higher risk of explosion). People who recycle are the enemy; they are the guys preventing them from doing their jobs.
I want to build one of these with my dad and set it up so that the neighbors and their kids can come by, watch the plastic churn and have a new doodad to bring home. He would love it, they would love it (minus some terrified parents) and it would be a pretty great thing all around.
- The outputs of this recycling tech can be fed into personal fabrication tech (3D printers, etc.)
- Power generation is decentralized (solar, etc.)
It's part of a set of tech that would allow for the localization of manufacturing, closing the whole lifecycle locally. This in turn brings things back to the community. It's not always about total energy efficiency.
Building a plastic recycling plant is out of reach for most of the people almost everywhere and requires industry while building those machines though requiring tools and skills is totally doable in a local workshop.
The precious plastic project allows a handful of individuals to a local operation. A village can be equipped with those machines and beyond picking the local plastic waste and reusing it, it also offers the possibility to not throw the waste away.
Here we have recycling plants, but it seems no one actually knows how they're operated, what they actually recycle from what is burned or buried and there are no obvious resulting products. What we do know is that they are expensive, financed by taxes and there are lots of constraints.
I'd rather have a place run by locals where I can get some new objects and material for a 3d printer.
> When microwaving, hit 66 seconds, 99 seconds, or 2:22 rather than even numbers. Why? Because 60 seconds is no more likely to be an appropriate amount of time to heat a cup of tea than 55 or 66 seconds. They are all arbitrary time periods. And you save a couple seconds. More important than the time savings is the ability to think for yourself.
The amount of time this saves me over a lifetime, I probably just spent reading this.
Probably true, but think of it as a "wax on -- wax off" kind of thing: having a habit of looking for tiny micro optimizations is fun and builds a bias to optimization.
I've been short Theranos from the beginning. It's very obvious to people who have interacted with the type of person Holmes is.
> Stanfraud graduate (not even graduated)
> Father has a IV in his name
> Both parents work in DC (east coast)
These are HUGE red flags in a field where results are much more tightly correlated with technical expertise. They wouldn't be in another field that is less tightly correlated such as banking or politics.
Furthermore, anybody that has done any amount of research in any capacity knows that an undergraduate claiming their research project (in biology especially. CS is possible) could launch an entire company is either purposefully delusional or incompetent.
