Also a guide to how to usr all that to interpret medical nonclemature of mutations, like c.345G>E would be handy
Those mutation descriptions are called HGVS (Human Genome Variation Society) nomenclature. In the example you give, "c." means that it's in a (protein) coding region, 345 is the position within the region, and G>E would be the change (although E isn't a valid "letter" in DNA sequence, even if you allow ambiguity codes -- you'd normally see something like G>T there instead).
Complications include:
1) You need to know which gene this is relative to.
2) The "coding sequence" for the gene isn't always perfectly defined, due to splice variation and different versions of the annotation. Ideally, you'd see this code relative to a specific splice variant (which might have an ENST identifier, from http://www.ensembl.org/). But it depends...
Just don't do anything with the leaves! My parents used to have some rhubarb in the garden when I was young, and I had it drummed into me how poisonous the leaves were (not that I was the sort to go around eating random plants). Looks like "a 65 kg adult would need to eat 4 to 8 kg (9 to 18 lbs) [of leaves] to obtain a lethal dose"[0], although I guess you could still get pretty ill with much less.
Being outside on my own is pretty good in general. Walking or cycling are the defaults, but maybe count as exercise? I've recently started riding a motorbike and spin on some quiet-ish open roads can be pretty rewarding...
Gym membership? That's what I do, and I try to bike the ~1 mile to the gym regardless of weather.
Other than that, there are plenty of inside options for that, like yoga (plenty of yoga series on YouTube), body weight fitness (pushups and whatnot, no equipment needed, though rings and/or pull-up bar are very handy), or aerobics (I count Just Dance games in that category), depending on what you're in to.
Those were pretty much the only reasons I continued to admire Google for as long as I did. They gave hope that the company might one day have a meaningful consumer revenue stream that isn’t advertising.
They’ve gone for “cloud services” instead. Drastically, drastically, less inspiring — and also pretty competitive. What happens if Amazon drop their prices a bit?
AWS accounts for something like half of Amazon’s operating revenue. It may not be exciting but it is a license to print money. Why wouldn’t google (and MSFT, and anyone else with a big sunk investment in data centers) want to monetize their investment too?
Originally bezos was pissed off that Amazon’s excess capacity for the Black Friday/Christmas surge was going to waste the other 50 weeks of the year. I suspect that’s a pretty powerful motivation. But google absorbs huge spikes too (9/11 was one of the first harbingers of this) so it seemed inevitable, even back then, that they’d do it eventually.
Fighting the momentum of entire markets and hoping a muse settles on your shoulder isn’t a sustainable business strategy for most companies, let alone very large public companies.
Cloud for Google is like Internet for Microsoft - was in great position to take advantage of and entirely missed.
There was a hard pivot in TechInfra when Cloud became a priority. And there is a business reason for it - if was estimated that with other cloud providers growing and consolidating Google will cease to be hardware buyer #1 and thus will not get best hardware discounts, affecting profitability of Ads/Search. So there was no choice but to get serious about cloud.
As for dropping prices, nothing will happen - clouds already run on relatively small, albeit oligopolic margins. If one provider reduces price, other providers will follow, with a bit less profit for everyone. This happens from time to time.
I realise that your numbers are only meant to be illustrative, but it's worth realising that this is "only" 65 hours a week for 40 years. A lot? Yes. More then I'd be willing to work at a typical desk job[1]? Probably. But feasible for a passion project? Definitely! (and doesn't even necessarily require starting before you hit 25, although that clearly helps...). The limiting factor is not so much that nobody can do this, but that (short of independent wealth, which I think can bring its own set of constraints and expectations) very few people ever get the opportunity to do this without a lot of interruptions. I don't think it's impossible to imagine a society where that isn't true.
[1] although... "thinking" can stack surprisingly well with some activities we'd consider leisure, like walking or (at least in my case) gardening. So maybe this isn't really going to be 65hrs/week at a desk...
Pretty much -- for example, I had definitely spent 10k hours each studying biology, chemistry and computer science by the time I reached age 21.
But, all this thinking is in my experience pretty useless in terms of real world results (and I don't mean results like Stanford idolizing you). You're not going to "think" your way into curing cancer no matter how many hours of biology or chemistry you take, and I should know, because I've seen people try. It's pretty hard to "think" up a company the size of Amazon, too, especially in a world where a lot of industry have their Amazon. You need capital and a degree of self-confidence bordering on manic delusion and when you have this you still need to not do what Elizabeth Holmes did and know when you've failed and give up what may have been ten or twenty years or a lifetime and start something else.
It's not the 100k hours. It's the very large odds they will have been for nothing, and picking up whatever is left of your life after.
It's not the 100k hours. It's the very large odds they will have been for nothing, and picking up whatever is left of your life after.
That's an interesting take. But my experience is that there is a non-negligible set of people who would see a lifetime spent working on their chosen problem to be well-spent, even if they don't eventually succeed.
Definitely try some different things and see what you like, but if you're looking for mission and impact I wouldn't completely dismiss web development. The web browser is a stupendously powerful tool for "getting things in front of people", and the combination of that plus some understanding of another area can achieve a lot. There could be opportunities to branch into scientific computing, fairly complex distributed systems, and more. Pretty much every area of computing except maybe hard-core embedded systems have a web component nowadays (and the "softer" end of the embedded market could have some good opportunities... can you imagine a consumer router with an actually-nice management interface? That's primarily a web-development problem!)
Cyclomatic complexity might be a textbook example of Goodhart's law. Of course few-paths code is easier to read, but that's often because it's doing something that's fundamentally simpler. And refactoring just to hit some arbitrary CC target seems very unlikely to be a route to happiness.
Goodhart's law is an adage named after economist Charles Goodhart, which has been phrased by Marilyn Strathern as: "When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure."
Ken Liu wrote an enjoyable short story ("Real Artists") about exactly that. Just looked it up and it was published in 2011. One of those unusual bits of SF that becomes, if anything, more credible over time.
