Imagine deploying a software product that changes over time in unknown ways -- could be good changes, could be bad, who knows? This goes beyond even making changes to a live system, it's letting the system react to the stream of data coming in and make changes to itself.

It's much preferable to lock down a model that is working well, release that, and then continue efforts to develop something better behind the scenes. It lets you treat it more like a software product with defined versions, release dates, etc., rather than some evolving organism.

We both understand the industry standards and the KPIs required for success. I’m fully committed to this strategic partnership—a level of dedication you won't find with any other service provider.

Transparency is key, so I want to share my vision and ensure our goals are perfectly synced.

My value proposition: - Zero churn rate (Never gonna give you up)

- Consistent delivery on SLAs (Never gonna let you down)

- 100% retention and reliability (Never gonna run around and desert you)

- High employee NPS (Never gonna make you cry)

- Long-term lifecycle management (Never gonna say goodbye)

- Radical candor and integrity (Never gonna tell a lie and hurt you)

Let's connect and scale together! #Leadership #Commitment #Networking #GrowthMindset

Journals (in the sense of whoever is on the editorial board) don't need to cease to exist; they just need to transition to "here's our list this month of what the best new articles are on X topic". The paper's already there on arXiv, you could already read it before. But having a group of editors that cultivate a list of good articles (as well as the peer review process that can, in an ideal world, serve to improve a paper) can serve to make sifting through arXiv less overwhelming, and draw attention to papers in particular subfields, subject matter, or whatever other criteria might be relevant.

Regardless, you're correct that it also shouldn't be taken to imply a causal relationship.

I have tried to remind myself in the past that literally nobody cares if I am behind on the TV shows I'm wanting to watch. Just me. So...I like the term "phantom obligation". I'll definitely tuck that away in my brain for later use.

Unfortunately it didn't mention the section in that carpark! But I can attest that the section behind the Leonardo Royal Hotel is amazing. I also recommend the tower remains on the Barbican estate (and really, just wander around the Barbican for a while, it's a wild place in general).

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rupert%27s_Land

So of people with young children, it looks like the rate is about 9.5%.

Also, the author is Canadian. So there's that, too.

It is sad to see stereotype threat being one of those findings that seems less and less credible. I once worked as a research assistant on a project related to stereotype threat, and I recall the study going through several iterations because it all needed to be just so -- we were testing stereotypes related to women and math, but the effect was expected to be strongest for women who were actually good at math, so it had to be a test that would be difficult enough to challenge them, but not so challenging that we would end up with a floor effect where no one succeeds. In hindsight, it's so easy to see the rationale of "oh, well we didn't find an effect because the test wasn't hard enough, so let's throw it out and try again" being a tool for p-hacking, file drawer effects, etc. But at the time...it seemed completely normal. Because it was.

I'm no longer in the field, but it is genuinely heartening that the field is heading toward more rigour, more attempts to correct the statistical and methodological mistakes, rather than digging in one's heels and prioritizing theory over evidence. But it's a long road, especially when trying to go back and validate past findings in the literature.

> If we think of mitochondria as non-living organelles, how will we ever harness their full potential?

Whenever anyone uses the "harnessing [its] full potential" cliché, my bullshit alarm starts buzzing. I don't think this article is bullshit, but...we can "harness" as much "potential" as mitochondria have whether we consider them alive or not.

To me, the fact that many of them clearly find Nebula a more suitable arrangement for them is still an indicator to me that, if I want to support the creators, Nebula is a better way to do that. Obviously, you can make your own decision on that, and sure, if you feel lied to, I can appreciate being upset about that. But maybe most of these content creators are less concerned with the ownership (they get 0% stake in Google, after all) and more concerned with the profit sharing arrangement. If so, I'm still happy to support them in that.