They were not equal contributors to the seminal paper that got the prize.
From another post in this thread:
"These authors contributed equally: John Jumper, Richard Evans, Alexander Pritzel, Tim Green, Michael Figurnov, Olaf Ronneberger, Kathryn Tunyasuvunakool, Russ Bates, Augustin Žídek, Anna Potapenko, Alex Bridgland, Clemens Meyer, Simon A. A. Kohl, Andrew J. Ballard, Andrew Cowie, Bernardino Romera-Paredes, Stanislav Nikolov, Rishub Jain, Demis Hassabis"
Anime quality has been on a steep decline. It's all isekai stuff these days and gacha is a disgusting mechanic no different from slot machines at the casinos. This article left me with a bad taste in my mouth.
No doubt that it would be best for fans if a16z stayed far away from anime, but you're wrong about quality declining. There's a ton of great stuff from recent times: Vinland Saga, Ranking of Kings, Chainsaw Man, Dr. Stone...
There's always been trash anime, but it feels like there's some very original work being produced.
No question, especially when you have only two major players distributing most anime in Sony and Netflix.
I enjoyed the good old days from the 1980s to the 2000s when it was actually more creative and good quality not to mention that there were more competition at that time period.
100% this. I'm glad I'm not the only one. The article is definetely written for someone that is not in the hobby and looking for a place to park money for more enshitification of a platform that already was, pretty much unrecognizable from a decade ago.
Falcon 9 booster landings became such a normal event that it's only news when it fails. Meanwhile every other rocket provider just tosses their booster in the ocean. (Edit: Rocket Lab does recover it from the ocean, using a parachute)
In any case, SpaceX was on a streak for so long but these past few months they got a failure (-ish?) on their second stage and now this. With so many launches every week it's bound to happen sometime, I guess.
Yeah, though it's a little weird that two failures should happen in relatively short order.
Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. But they definitely want to be alert, because a third time would suggest that something else is going on. Perhaps a slip in manufacturing standards.
I wouldn't get too worked up, given that 23 launches is utterly unprecedented. Still, it's odd.
Is it really weird that two very overworked boosters fail after they both get overworked around the same time? The only odd thing is that they have multiple very overworked boosters.
The two failures aren’t related though if I’m not mistaken. This is an issue on a first stage on landing while the other was an issue on a second stage engine.
I think it’s just a weird coincidence. But they’re also launching so often that it was bound to happen.
I think they also had some 200+ consecutive successful landings which is wildly impressive.
