161–170 of 260 posts
* An implementation of Nix's ideas for mere mortals.
* Version Control for non-technical users and for any kind of binary files.
The last one is interesting because most users will just see it as a more powerful undo/redo system.
You could come at it from two fronts. Bottom up there's a need for tools that better help you investigate "what the hell is all this, what's in it, and where is it?" for software artifacts. Top down there's a need for an interactive dashboard executives could use to get a view (on their terms not the programmers') what the software that runs their business actually does.
If I knew how to implement this I'd quit my job tomorrow to work on it. Unfortunately I have no idea. I can only see in vague terms what it might look like and the hole in our current way of interacting with software that drives this need.
Or I could be wrong: in general other people consistently don't care about the things I think they obviously should care about.
I'm not sure about biggest, but on of the biggest sure. Two problems. 1. DNA sequencing, now is two part process (I simplify a lot, sure) - at first stage, target DNA divided for small pieces, and those pieces sequenced to digital codes and saved to database. Than in second part, computer cluster works few months, to connect those pieces to one chain. And this is very expensive process even considering few gigabytes…
The is an interesting related opportunity: given a existing desired protein, find its sequence- needed so that you can determine the corresponding genetic sequence so that your custom organism can synthesize the protein. Protein sequencing is not so easy... very basically you can do it one amino acid at a time based on the fact that amino acids are "sided", meaning side A of each can only connect to side B of the nex…
But their software not good, because they just make first steps into gigabytes world, they have not worked with so large data chunks before, and this is really stellar opportunity.
One thing we see over and over again leading to social injustice is the externalization of costs. Examples: * burning fossil fuels externalizes the cost of dealing with climate change * during the housing market crash of 2007, lots of risks were ultimately externalized to the state * plastic waste ending up in the ocean means somebody[tm] externalized the cost of not properly disposing of / recycling their waste ...…
The problem is the business model. If it’s paid for by businesses due to regulation it’s incentivized to undercount and be shitty. If it’s paid for by government then it’s going to be somewhat winner-take-all and you have to go through their procurement. Either way it could be very innovative and cool but due to the business requirements it’d likely end up very enterprisey and crappy
Someone needs to solve online identity and reputation (in a privacy-preserving way) so that you can accumulate trust on one site/service and carry that over to another. Ideally such a system shouldn't devolve into trusting just a few large American corporations to decide who is and isn't allowed an online existence. It feels like we can't have nice things because if you want to put a user-editable resource online, yo…
The problem is that most of the existing ways of transferring reputation (or the appearance of it) between contexts result in opportunities for arbitrage: celebrity endorsements, scientists supporting theories outside of their field, con artists leveraging social proof escalation, phishing, etc.
We've seen some of the strictest mechanisms of reputational transference leveraged for illicit purposes:
https://cromwell-intl.com/cybersecurity/pki-failures.html
Everything that makes reputation and trust transfers useful and convenient for users creates a huge attractive nuisance for illicit actors, from state level APTs on down to 419 scammers and everyone in between.
Right now it is very difficult for people to figure out good ways to help causes they care about. Whether in big ways, like career shifts, or small ways, like writing a letter on behalf of a divestment initiative.
(This is a biased answer since I am working on this)