Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | dwa3592's commentslogin

I think knowingly or unknowingly this person just summed it up - there was an effort(last 2-3 centuries) to elevate people of just one type (let's say X) and a lot of those were just fraudulent and now the effort is to elevate these other types (rest of the types minus type X) and a lot of these might also be fraudulent. So I think deliberately elevating a type leads to some fraudulence. It doesn't mean we should judge the types but that we should be careful which we should be anyway.

"In a full description of the structure in a paper submitted in August 1953 and published in 1954, Crick and Watson did attempt to set the record straight17. They acknowledged that, without Franklin’s data, “the formulation of our structure would have been most unlikely, if not impossible”, and implicitly referred to the MRC report as a “preliminary report” in which Franklin and Wilkins had “independently suggested that the basic structure of the paracrystalline [B] form is helical and contains two intertwined chains”."

What Rosalind Franklin truly contributed to the discovery of DNA’s structure - https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-01313-5



[edited] - It's incredible to think that it starts from DNA, is 3.5nm tall and the solid silicon fins in our phone's transistor is twice that.

The chip is not smaller than 3.5nm; but a component on the chip is that small.

"In a full description of the structure in a paper submitted in August 1953 and published in 1954, Crick and Watson did attempt to set the record straight17. They acknowledged that, without Franklin’s data, “the formulation of our structure would have been most unlikely, if not impossible”, and implicitly referred to the MRC report as a “preliminary report” in which Franklin and Wilkins had “independently suggested that the basic structure of the paracrystalline [B] form is helical and contains two intertwined chains”."

What Rosalind Franklin truly contributed to the discovery of DNA’s structure - https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-01313-5


Holy shit, this is really cool. i felt like i was in a movie. the car blows up and is ready to go right away; the car drives in the water (faster if you hold down the space bar). music is nice; and the 3d rendering is also pretty smooth. love it.

shift is turbo mode

B or CTL is brake

H is horn


they should still have made it rechargeable tbh.

How much rechargeability really requires from hardware point of view?

I suppose the problem is that there are no standard for tiny magnetic chargers/cables. Every watch comes with their own, and they need be custom designed. For a device this large as much of the charging electronics should be outside the ring.

And another (small?) problem is that you'd need to electrically protect those external pins.


I'm with you, a little pogo-pin connector with all the charging circuitry in the external dongle would add, I don't know, ten dollars to the BOM. Very cool product but I won't buy a gadget I know I'd dispose in two years.

Yeah, this would have been a neat tool for "middle-of-the-night" thoughts, but I don't want a disposable electronic device. I get why it is that way; not having any charging hardware probably makes the device much smaller. But I'd rather it be a bit bigger and rechargeable.

I dont believe it would be even more circuitry. 2 exposed pins and maybe a diode if you really want some protection. They did this to sell more rings.

They can still make another version which is slightly larger and is rechargeable; and let people decide what they prefer more.

This is definitely an AI response that wasn't even reviewed. The word "moat" doesn't even exist in the article but you have put it in quotes.

I am not sure if it's just me or there have been too many outages this year to count. Is it the AI slop making into production?

Beautiful. Is it E2E encrypted?

Does it matter? They'll surely wouldn't implement a local/client-first E2E encryption, so in the end they'll be holding the keys anyways.

If you want something private, don't put it on other people's platforms, it's very simple.


> Does it matter? They'll surely wouldn't implement a local/client-first E2E encryption, so in the end they'll be holding the keys anyways

Yes it matters, there are use cases if not only for privacy focus people. Why would the hold the keys? I actually have found a good example of one that I am working to verify.


Because currently they have search and they do user-to-user messaging, good luck implementing that over the web in a reliable and scalable way with E2E encryption.

I'm not sure you understand the e2e encryption, the search can be ran on client side after decryption, there's no need to run it on the server side.

The chat is a bit more transient but you're transferring messages encrypted again over websocket for example, then decrypted on client.

I'm not seeing what the blocker is, or even issues with scale given its the client side doing the work.

Working example : http://securinote.com/#/notebook/bf528a8d-bf34-4f49-8cb9-e63...

key : embedding

Open up a second tab, make a change, check the network you'll see its sent over the wire encrpted via websocket.


I was looking for this too. shared one that was client side encrypted. No realtime chat though. SecuriNote.com

No, it is not. But that's high on the list of things we're focusing on.

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: