A lot of people say he isn't part of the establishment. The idea that someone who is rich and embedded in the media for the entire professional life is not part of the establishment is really confusing to me. Why do you have this perception? I am honestly curious.

Nor do I, but this person is the standard bearer for the stable world order that has helped lift many of us out of poverty, and has promised to continue doing so.

That world order is pretty chill, in comparison to historical standards. It seems rash to claim maintaining it doesn't matter, and that's exactly what this rich white man has campaigned on.

So popular sentiment is actually in support of an open, connected world. The political structures in the US systematically oppress this majority, due to its concentration in cities and the legacy of a voting system that respects territory over people.

Whole genome is not controlled enough to meet clinical standards.

Unfortunately there isn't a requirement that the code developed under grants is released as open source, but there is a lot of movement to make it so. Furthermore, researchers have strong incentives to provide reusable software implementations of their research. (I know many people say the incentives run against this, but it is now clear that useful software gets more citations and scientists forget so at their own risk!)

I don't have a recent budget handy, but at least 10% of research funding is going to various forms of software development. I am happy to be shown wrong but 10% seems like a low estimate as literally all analysis is mediated by software. It's not like people crack out slide rules when they get a data set from a sequencer or mass spec. They go to GitHub and download some obscure domain-specific open source analysis package. Point being: a tiny administrative change could ensure that we direct $3B a year to open source scientific software in biomedicine! And further, it nearly looks this way already.

Do you really believe this? They are doing so using a private company. The Gates foundation, for all their hubris, are at least a foundation and a nonprofit.

I hope the pitchforks come out against Chan Zuckerberg.

They are doing everything possible to build exactly the opposite kind of world that they claim to promote.

I always hope the smart people of HN can see through this. But I guess the folks here are too smitten by wealth to care.

I was heel striking, which was encouraged by equipment (thick padded shoes) and by coaching. I took years off, learned to row, and came back literally running barefoot and on my toes. Tired of pulling glass out of my feet, I started using racing flats and then vibrams when training.

It took five years to get to where I could do the same mileage as before. Now my knees don't hurt any more than any other part of my body after running. I think the soft landings of toe strike running make all the difference.

Those early years definitely did damage. In my case I feel I have overcome it. I hope you will too. Running is a beautiful thing and a shame to lose.

Rant:

Often those who seem to be making a difference are just those we notice because they are making the biggest mess. Some companies operate like speedboats tearing through no wake zone. Isn't it grand how fast they go? Behind them is a trail of senseless destruction that they care not to see. Just because you make money doesn't mean its good. If we don't relearn to regulate ourselves this way we risk social order. Inequality will rise. Human interaction will be mediated by corporate lords. Then everything will start to smell. People are going to revolt, and nobody is going to have a nice time.

Ahem ahem...

Why isn't there a popular p2p solution to messaging (other than email)?