This is an ad for a company that drop ships their product from another company that has made its business on offering production and fulfillment of canned (but customizable) 3D knit styles.
Tailored Industries (the factory) says they have over 300 products that are available immediately as white-labeled items at your custom online boutique. I don't know if any of these designs were customized or not, but it is a surprisingly low startup cost to put together a shopify store and have Tailored Industries make your clothes on demand. You need some photos, and a cool looking brand, and they do all of the hard work. I wonder if I should open up my own shop...
They can be luxury vehicles with reasonable running costs - regular gas and less depreciation than the usual luxury brands. They also have utility in case you need it. Pickup trucks aren't my cup of tea but it can be very rational to buy one even if you don't need it as a work truck.
It should decline some 60 sec after physical activity. I think I measured after 10-15 minutes. Fatigue, dehydration, lack of sleep, a diet with lots of coffee. I just added those to the todo list. I went home to sleep (and confiscated the heart rate meter), the next morning it was around 100 bpm which is still terrible shape. Over the day it sunk to 80, over the 2nd day to 70, 3rd a bit lower. Back at work it would barely elevate. The moral of the story: Don't work out 11 hours per day for 6 months straight.
Are there sample images from the camera on the product website? This is a neat idea but it would be nice to gauge to what extent it is fit for purpose, and a helpful way to do this is with a bunch of sample images.
This is an amazing project, but you are pitching it as an engineer. As an amateur photographer, the first thing I want to see are sample photos. Super cool little device!
Most households with 4+ people are going to have dozens of connected devices, including multiple doing HD to 4K entertainment streams, outgoing video feeds, and (at least on PS5) the occasional unexpected 80GB updates to a video game you were just about to play. This in addition to the apps/webapps that are often in the 10s of Mb of content served per click.
Those households also have one poorly configured Wi-Fi access point, which is jockeying for airtime with dozens of competing access points in the same frequency range, meaning the customer is realistically going to see maybe 200Mbps aggregated across those devices (due to interference, channel congestion, that one streaming device with a -90dBm signal sucking up all the airtime at the lowest supported data rate...)
IMHO we need to address the "last meter" experience before mandated gigabit internet speeds mean anything.
Multiple simultaneous 4K streams does not describe any household I know. How much TV are you people watching? It seems like an exceptionally high level of media consumption, in my experience.
Furthermore, 4K video is < 25mbps each per stream, usually.
1 Gbps is nice when downloading games and updates. Since everything is digital it can be the difference between waiting 30 minutes or 3 hours. IE: You play a game the night it's released/updated or wait until after work the next day.
Upload speed probably makes more sense for more use cases though. I used to have symmetric 1Gbps fiber and never bothered to setup QOS as my upload was never saturated.
I moved and am stuck with "1Gbps" Comcast. Which really means 25Mbps upload. I had to setup qdiscs on my gateway and split my network into tiers to get acceptable upload speeds and latency for the workstations in my home. I maybe have more uploads than 'normal' people, as I have automated backups that store data off-site, but normal people have "backups" in the form of cloud storage I think.
Uploading videos (to YouTube, for example) is painfully slow. I'm simulating living in Australia when I upload a video.
They upgraded my line from VDSL (~80Mbit/s down and 20 up) to 1Gbit/s FTTH (~800Mbit/s down and 300 up) and didn't see that big difference, on normal navigation.
Sure, if I download a torrent, it is much faster. But is not the kind of upgrade that I experienced from ADSL (7Mbit) to VDSL. Since most of the time I use the PC under Wi-Fi anyway, that doesn't go over 600Mbit/s near the AP, but really not over 100 in the location where I usually have my PC.
What I've seen instead is a much more stable connection. Giving that the network is entirely fiber and passive there weren't (so far) any interruption of service in roughly one year, while with VDSL there where time to time that the connection did not work, in one occasion for nearly a week. Also since it was copper lines in case of bad weather, or crosstalk with other users, the performance did vary a lot.
That matches my experience as well. I'll take a little slower, if its symmetric and fiber. The stability is worth it. I could stream multiple videos at 4k pretty easily with 100Mbps. They've upgraded to 300 since then, but the difference was unnoticeable.
Most complaints that I've seen in various neighborhoods are from people that were not getting anywhere near their full speed. Usually the cause is their wifi router.
I recently went from 300mbps to 2gbps, and one big difference is game update time. In the past, I would sometimes go to play a game with my friends and it would require a 10 gig update, and we would have to play a different game because it would take too long to update. Now I can update in under a minute and we can play.
To me that's more about the company making too many large updates. And when they do have a large updated it should be up to the user to decide when to get it. Downloading it over night should be an option, and not required to play. I've seem games that demanded the update in order to play, which is really annoying and I don't think it should be that way.
First, you are not buying a sustained 1Gb. Not at consumer pricing. Secondly, having burst capacity is very helpful. Moving big images, videos, etc., which you do only occasionally, benefits a lot from a 1Gb consumer-grade link.
Teams will usually use ~4Mbit of upload when I do screen sharing, and screen shares are usually significantly above 3fps (normally closer to 15-30fps).
Latency usually explodes as connection utilization goes up. If you have a router with good QOS and limit to 80% of your max available connection you're probably going to have pretty good latency.
Then again I'm not a networking guy. Someone who knows more about this stuff than I do can give you more comprehensive advice and talk about stuff like buffer bloat, etc.
As long as front-end developers keep shoving more and more layers of JavaScript "libraries" and corporations shovel more and more adware into every request it's likely we'll continue to need more and more bandwidth; because most developers figure if it is working great in thier office with a dedicated fiber line on the latest MBP it obviously must be fine for everyone.
I have 1gb connection and I agree that 99% of the time this isn't utilized, but it's very helpful when you want to download anything, from new steam game, through system updated to for me work related usage. this isn't that much about you can download per month, but how fast you can do it when you need something
When games are 100+ gigs it starts being something that can make an impact especially when updates are also massive. But this is the same thing people say over every incremental in tech. “Isn’t x enough”
If Fossil is so against deleting commits, what do you do if you've accidentally committed sensitive information that cannot live in any form in the repo?
Fossil provides a mechanism called "shunning" for removing content from a repository.
Every Fossil repository maintains a list of the hash names of "shunned" artifacts. Fossil will refuse to push or pull any shunned artifact. Furthermore, all shunned artifacts (but not the shunning list itself) are removed from the repository whenever the repository is reconstructed using the "rebuild" command.
It is a problem in all decentralized systems. Once you publish something, there is no going back. Anyone of your peers can decide to leave with your sensitive data. That's also what make them so resistant to data loss.
Now if you know everyone who has a copy of your repository, you can have them run a bunch of sqlite commands / low level git commands to make sure that the commit is gone.
If you didn't publish anything, as someone else said, your best bet is to make an entirely new clone, transfer the work you did on the original, omitting the sensitive data, then nuke the original.
The difference seems to be that commits are serious business on fossil, and they encourage you to test before you commit. While on git, commits are more trivial, pushing is where things become serious.
Or you can just rebase to edit the commits and remove the secret file. If you're really paranoid you can run `git gc` vto ensure the object file is cleaned up also. If you're super paranoid, then you can do:
git hash-object secretpassword.txt
And check that hash isn't an object in the `.git/objects` directory.
> FURTHER WARNING: This command is a work-in-progress and may yet contain bugs.
Purging and shunning are two entirely different things in fossil. Shunning is for removing "bad" content and purging is very specifically for use with the "bundle" command (a rarely-used option for submitting "drive-by patches" initially conceived as fossil's counterpart to pull-requests).
That's a good point. Delete the repo and start over I suppose? W/ git wouldn't it possible to find and restore that info anyway? Guess it becomes what do you care about most at that point.
What an amazing world we live in. There is nothing interesting about a robotic assisted surgery able to perform more delicate and sophisticated operations than the best human surgeon in the world.
Da Vinci is telecontrolled. The robot does nothing but imitate the exact motion its commanded to by the surgeon.
The headline should read " Surgeon saves patients life using surgical tool that has been widely available an on the market for decades"
The medical professionals deserve the credit. If this was 20 years ago, yeah, we should celebrate the technical achievement and advancement, but there isn't one here. It's old news.
Yes, but let's also avoid oversimplifying how complicated that robot is, how much tuning the controls took and how much special training the surgeon needed.
Not a new concept by any means, but still worthy of continued praise and admiration.
Yes, the medical advancement is quite amazing. Couple years ago a friend went on a funding tour visiting startups and he mentioned he saw a demo of 3D oral scanning device to build a 3D model of the teeth. This year I saw the device in my dentist office and did an oral scan to build the 3D mold for bite guard. He said it's cheaper than the old method.
Da Vinci is famously not better. There isn't a single study showing its better. It's also not less expensive, and doesn't reduce staffing needs in the OR.
What is it? A marketing tool. Surgery centers and hospitals can drive increases in patients and patient throughput, improving their bottom line. It's marketing and throughout.
They have a classic razor razor blade model. The surgical instrument are proprietary and locked in with eeprom chips in the disposables. They only last a handful if cases and then must be replaces. Intuitive made something like 80 billion last year and has had no real competition in their market for decades. As a result they've been able to pretty much write their own checks, choosing how much stuff costs and achieving huge margins on lots of very expensive equipment and supplies.
Source- I've worked on and lead the design teams for surgical robots for several companies in the field.
"When it comes to prostatectomies, urologists have found the outcomes for da Vinci robotic surgery to be much better than for laparoscopic surgery and use this method in more than 90% of these procedures [...] Robotic surgery also appears to provide clinical benefits for some, but not all, types of head and neck surgery."
It also reports negative value overall for gynecological surgeries.
The evidence you provided suggests it's better for some things and not others, which seems like the expected case.
Actually, it is compelling. All things being equal you give an experienced surgeon an advanced tool and get 30% reduction in hospital stay along with less damage to your kidney function
From a patient point of view it is a big difference. Hospital stay is really expensive even if you have insurance. Hospitals charge like 10000$ per day and copayment foe hospital stay is usually hundreds of dollars.
Of course, it means that hospitals can process more patients and generate more profit, but it also reduces surgery wait times, which is critical for a patient with a tumor, because the longer your wait, the more likely for the tumor to spread
No, we don't assume that its is better because it is robot. We assume it is better because it was specifically designed to give to a surgeon a better instrument. It allows more range of instruments movement and degree of freedom and eliminates issues with surgeon hands trembling.
Yes, there is no statistically significant evidence yet that it is better, but there is no statistical evidence that it is worse. I don't think it is beneficial to stop using this technology based on cost effectiveness.
I happened to had a tumor on my kidney 6 month ago, so I actually had to make a decision between regular laparoscopy and Da Vinci.
Tge surgeon who did not have access to the robot system said that robot is just marketing BS and he would do a surgery just fine. However, because the tumor was on the back side of the kidney it would require rotating kidney out of the place and would be a bit challenging. But he was confident that it could be done
THe surgeon with robot said that tumor position is not a problem for a robot whatsoever. So I went with the robot.
So, back to OP, the robot is better because it allows to perform surgery in places where it is not possible to go with non robotic instruments.
I also have plenty of anecdata from people who had similar surgeries performed on them with different techiques. It terms of post op recovery da Vinci wins unanimously. I had surgery on Tuesday and was back to work next Monday
>No, we don't assume that its is better because it is robot. We assume it is better because it was specifically designed to give to a surgeon a better instrument.
All kinds of things have been designed to "specifically give to an X profession a better instrument".
That's just a mission statement at best, marketing promo at worst. Doesn't preclude them not meeting that target.
"it's better because it has been specifically designed to be better" is circular reasoning.
It does allow for improvements in surgical technique in some ways, it introduces severe limitations in other ways.
Many of the positives you highlight are true for any modern laporoscopic surgury, not just Da Vinci. In most indications, manual laparoscopy is by far the market volume leader for lots of reasons. Reasons like big surgical systems like Da Vinci are huge and require dedicated large ORs that are expensive. Meanwhile they still need to get surgury done in the smaller, more common, more cost effective ORs. Don't get me wrong, Da Vinci is a modern marvel, as I've said in other comments here it's truly a remarkable work of engineering. Its also a monopoly that makes a ton of money, and also far from how every surgery is done or should be done. Those two things don't go together, monopoly and shouldn't be the whole market. That's all I'm saying. It's not the panacea it's made out to be often.
I have some robot experience, so I assume any robot is hot garbage until proved otherwise. In the links you've provided, the robot seems to do better than baseline in prostate surgeries, and is now the standard approach.
>Actually, it is compelling. All things being equal you give an experienced surgeon an advanced tool and get 30% reduction in hospital stay along with less damage to your kidney function
First you have to trust the surgeon not to be shilling in his report.
It's totally amazing. It's like a space shuttle. It's the culmination of decades if investment and decades of some of the smartest people in robotics working tirelessly. It's a modern marvel.
Others have been trying for years. The latest big player is J&J who faces an existential threat due to robotic surgery overtaking conventional surgery, and therefore one of J&J/Ethicons core business. They bought Verb and Auris and a few other smaller companies in the space and smashed them together. There are others in the space trying to do the same.
Ultimately Intuitive has a pretty big moat. They have a lot on the technical/IP side, but also just business wise. These hospitals and surgery centers pay millions for a robot, then need to keep it busy doing cases for several years to pay it off. There is a lot of risk and not really any clear advantages to changing to a new challenger. That new challenger would need to demonstrate some key advantage, which they have yet to do.
It's hard, its akin to trying to compete with space x or similar, starting now.
Do you hate yourself for living under a roof when so many can’t? For eating dinner when so many are starving? For drinking clean water when so much pollution exists?
Good stuff happening shouldn’t make you miserable.
>Do you hate yourself for living under a roof when so many can’t? For eating dinner when so many are starving? For drinking clean water when so much pollution exists?
I've seen authors describe their ideological opponents as being self-hating, but till now have never seen anyone own it.
There are many things in a person's emotional life that a person does not have any control over (at least not in the short term and without spending lots of time and money on, e.g., psychotherapy). I think it is commendable that you understand your own emotions well enough to perceive this self-hatred, and I do not think any less of you because of it.
If there are many people who share your emotional reaction to inequality, that would have explain a lot of things that so far have been puzzling to me.
What is your opinion of those who have things that others lack, but do not hate themselves for it? Is there something wrong with such non-self-hating lucky one in your eyes?
This robot didn’t pull money that would otherwise be used for giving people healthcare. You’re complaining about unrelated things, the problem is around bought and sold politicians allowing for regulatory capture in healthcare, not around great science and engineering building an impressive product. This what-aboutism is just pathetic.
