Dr. TSA

7 months ago

"... but what stands out most is how she uses her voice to uplift others. It was an honor to present this resolution and celebrate a young leader who represents the very best of California" -Sen Ashby @ucdavis @UofCalifornia @Chancellor_May @CalAggieAlumni @sopranotiara

Senator Angelique Ashby

@SenatorAshby

7 months ago

So proud to recognize Tiara Thankam Abraham, a Sacramento native whose talent, discipline, and heart inspire us all. From graduating college at 16 to becoming the youngest doctoral music student at 18, Tiara’s achievements are extraordinary, but what stands out most is how she uses her voice to uplift others. It was an honor to present this resolution and celebrate a young leader who represents the very best of California. 🌟🎶 #SacramentoProud #CaliforniaExcellence #YouthLeadership

SenatorAshby's tweet photo. So proud to recognize Tiara Thankam Abraham, a Sacramento native whose talent, discipline, and heart inspire us all.

From graduating college at 16 to becoming the youngest doctoral music student at 18, Tiara’s achievements are extraordinary, but what stands out most is how she uses her voice to uplift others.

It was an honor to present this resolution and celebrate a young leader who represents the very best of California. 🌟🎶

#SacramentoProud #CaliforniaExcellence #YouthLeadership

842

3 days ago

@iScienceLuvr Hang in there 🤗

3 days ago

@Tara_Deshpande Enjoyed reading this post. As a veterinarian would like to caution that bats are also hosts of fatal disease like rabies, coronaviruses like SARS & MERS, Ebola & Marburg, Nipah & Hendra, and Histoplasmosis, a fungal infection contracted by inhaling airborne spores from bat guano

👇 weekly wisdom newsletter

3 days ago

@Tara_Deshpande wow!!

Who to follow

Oscarvore

@Oscarvore

IISD Economies

@IISD_ELP

#Sustdev policy research on agriculture, investment, trade, sustainability standards, public procurement & infrastructure finance. Secretariat of @IGFMining

Audrey Truschke

@AudreyTruschke

Professor of South Asian history | newest book https://t.co/TajyAW2xyB | At Bluesky https://t.co/rcg50aiLYM

3 days ago

@Tara_Deshpande Sad to see such beautiful historic buildings demolished, all in the name of making more money for developers. Once they're gone, a piece of our history, character, and heritage is gone forever. And it's sad that future generations will never get to enjoy such sights

4katluvrs retweeted

Millie Marconi

@MillieMarconnni

4 days ago

A 33-year-old woman at MIT wrote the code that ran inside the Apollo 11 lunar lander, and 20 seconds before Neil Armstrong touched the moon, her program made a decision the astronauts didn't know was happening that was the only reason the mission didn't crash. Her name was Margaret Hamilton. She led the team writing every line of code that would fly humans to the moon and back. The part almost nobody knows is that she had to fight to be allowed to do the work at all. Code in 1965 was not treated as real work. Rockets were serious. Circuits were serious. Writing code was something the men at NASA thought secretaries could do on the side. Hamilton was told this to her face more than once. So she started calling what her team did "software engineering." She used the phrase on purpose. In meetings. In memos. To force people to treat it as a discipline instead of a chore. Colleagues laughed at her the first few times she said it out loud. That phrase is now the name of the biggest engineering profession on earth. The story of what her code did on July 20, 1969 is the one every kid should be taught. Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin were 3 minutes from touching down when the computer inside the lunar module started flashing an alarm. 1202. Then again. Then 1201. Five alarms in four minutes. The computer was telling the astronauts it could not finish everything it had been asked to do. The computer they were flying with had less memory than a modern microwave. Someone on the checklist had left a switch in the wrong position, and a radar the astronauts did not even need right then was flooding the computer with data. It was eating around 13% of the machine's brain at the exact moment every second mattered. In almost any other system, that overload would have frozen the machine. A frozen machine 30,000 feet above the moon means a crash. It means two dead astronauts and a third one orbiting alone above them, waiting for a signal that would never come. Hamilton's code did something else. She had built the software with a rule almost nobody in her field was using at the time. When the machine ran out of room, it would not treat every task as equally important. It would look at the list of jobs it had been asked to do, throw out the ones that could wait, and keep running only the ones keeping the crew alive. The radar was the low priority job. The landing was the highest. So the computer did what she had told it to do. It dumped the radar. It kept flying. The alarm was not a failure. It was the machine reporting that it was handling the overload exactly the way she had designed it to. Down in Houston, a 24-year-old engineer named Jack Garman recognized the alarm from a test his team had run months earlier. He shouted "Go" to the flight controller. The controller shouted it up to the crew. The landing kept going. Armstrong touched the surface with 25 seconds of fuel left. The part that gets lost in every retelling is why Hamilton had built that safety net in the first place. NASA had not asked for it. She had added it on her own, years earlier, because her 4-year-old daughter Lauren had once crashed the simulator by pressing a button during a test. The button was one the astronauts had been told they would never press. Hamilton wanted the code to survive that button press anyway. Her bosses told her it was a waste of time. Astronauts do not make mistakes. She insisted. The safety net went in. Two years later, on the way to the moon, an astronaut left a switch in the wrong position. The exact class of mistake she had been told would never happen. There is a photograph of her from that period. She is standing next to a stack of paper as tall as she is. Every page in that stack is the code her team wrote for the mission. She is smiling at the camera like she knows something the rest of the aerospace industry has not figured out yet. In 2016, Barack Obama put the Presidential Medal of Freedom around her neck and said the astronauts did not have much time, but thankfully, they had Margaret Hamilton. Every autopilot in every plane you have ever flown on uses a version of what she invented. Every pacemaker. Every self driving car. Every satellite in orbit. The idea that a machine should know which job matters most and drop the rest when it runs out of room is now the foundation of almost every safety system on the planet. She wrote it because a 4 year old crashed a simulator and nobody else thought it was worth fixing. The men in the room laughed at her for calling it engineering. Then her code was the only thing in the sky that did not fail.

MillieMarconnni's tweet photo. A 33-year-old woman at MIT wrote the code that ran inside the Apollo 11 lunar lander, and 20 seconds before Neil Armstrong touched the moon, her program made a decision the astronauts didn't know was happening that was the only reason the mission didn't crash.

Her name was Margaret Hamilton.

She led the team writing every line of code that would fly humans to the moon and back. The part almost nobody knows is that she had to fight to be allowed to do the work at all.

Code in 1965 was not treated as real work.

Rockets were serious. Circuits were serious. Writing code was something the men at NASA thought secretaries could do on the side. Hamilton was told this to her face more than once.

So she started calling what her team did "software engineering."

She used the phrase on purpose. In meetings. In memos. To force people to treat it as a discipline instead of a chore. Colleagues laughed at her the first few times she said it out loud.

That phrase is now the name of the biggest engineering profession on earth.

The story of what her code did on July 20, 1969 is the one every kid should be taught.

Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin were 3 minutes from touching down when the computer inside the lunar module started flashing an alarm.

1202.

Then again. Then 1201. Five alarms in four minutes. The computer was telling the astronauts it could not finish everything it had been asked to do.

The computer they were flying with had less memory than a modern microwave.

Someone on the checklist had left a switch in the wrong position, and a radar the astronauts did not even need right then was flooding the computer with data. It was eating around 13% of the machine's brain at the exact moment every second mattered.

In almost any other system, that overload would have frozen the machine.

A frozen machine 30,000 feet above the moon means a crash. It means two dead astronauts and a third one orbiting alone above them, waiting for a signal that would never come.

Hamilton's code did something else.

She had built the software with a rule almost nobody in her field was using at the time. When the machine ran out of room, it would not treat every task as equally important. It would look at the list of jobs it had been asked to do, throw out the ones that could wait, and keep running only the ones keeping the crew alive.

The radar was the low priority job.

The landing was the highest.

So the computer did what she had told it to do. It dumped the radar. It kept flying. The alarm was not a failure. It was the machine reporting that it was handling the overload exactly the way she had designed it to.

Down in Houston, a 24-year-old engineer named Jack Garman recognized the alarm from a test his team had run months earlier. He shouted "Go" to the flight controller. The controller shouted it up to the crew. The landing kept going.

Armstrong touched the surface with 25 seconds of fuel left.

The part that gets lost in every retelling is why Hamilton had built that safety net in the first place.

NASA had not asked for it.

She had added it on her own, years earlier, because her 4-year-old daughter Lauren had once crashed the simulator by pressing a button during a test. The button was one the astronauts had been told they would never press.

Hamilton wanted the code to survive that button press anyway.

Her bosses told her it was a waste of time. Astronauts do not make mistakes.

She insisted. The safety net went in.

Two years later, on the way to the moon, an astronaut left a switch in the wrong position. The exact class of mistake she had been told would never happen.

There is a photograph of her from that period.

She is standing next to a stack of paper as tall as she is. Every page in that stack is the code her team wrote for the mission. She is smiling at the camera like she knows something the rest of the aerospace industry has not figured out yet.

In 2016, Barack Obama put the Presidential Medal of Freedom around her neck and said the astronauts did not have much time, but thankfully, they had Margaret Hamilton.

Every autopilot in every plane you have ever flown on uses a version of what she invented. Every pacemaker. Every self driving car. Every satellite in orbit.

The idea that a machine should know which job matters most and drop the rest when it runs out of room is now the foundation of almost every safety system on the planet.

She wrote it because a 4 year old crashed a simulator and nobody else thought it was worth fixing.

The men in the room laughed at her for calling it engineering.

Then her code was the only thing in the sky that did not fail.

202

349K

3 days ago

@iScienceLuvr After everything you've been through this week with @united, I don't think anyone would blame you! At this point, a private jet sounds less like a luxury and more like a mental health investment, one that lets you arrive on time and with your sanity intact. 😂

3 days ago

@iScienceLuvr @mihirneal @SacramentoKings Kings were one of @NBA's best teams from about 1999–2004. Led by @realchriswebber, Peja Stojaković, Mike Bibby, Vlade Divac, & coached by Rick Adelman. Their fast-paced offense earned them the nickname "Light the Beam" after wins, thanks to the purple laser lit above their arena.

4katluvrs retweeted

4 days ago

Always remember: a Twitter account's follower count is not at all correlated with the positive impact a person has in this world.

4 days ago

@iScienceLuvr absolutely right ❣️

5 days ago

@iScienceLuvr @aiDotEngineer After @united flight cancellation, followed by repeated delays to the next day's 11 a.m. flight, you finally made it to SF at 1:30 a.m. on the 3rd day! Wishing you a productive & rewarding conference but @united need to compensate u for all the additional stress & inconvenience.

108

6 days ago

@iScienceLuvr @TheZachMueller and to add to it, @FlyAspenAirport is still stuck in 1940s when the airport started, just one computer to process passengers😠

4katluvrs retweeted

6 days ago

The fact that @united completely screwed up our flight plans and didn't even give us a voucher or anything is absolutely pathetic. What a garbage airline.

11K

4katluvrs retweeted

6 days ago

DO NOT EVER FLY ON @UNITED FROM ASPEN They delayed my flight by one day and then again delaying it by several hours meaning I miss my connecting flight. And then they originally offered a $1500 voucher and now they're saying they won't offer it anymore. I am trying to get to @aiDotEngineer but it's so hard 😭 I am missing my hotel booking and the conference and this useless airline cannot even provide a travel voucher. Screw them.

11K

7 days ago

@iScienceLuvr 🎯

4katluvrs retweeted

9 days ago

I think people outside of the field don't realize how fast medical AI is moving right now. There used to be this idea that applying AI to medicine and bringing that progress to patients would take forever. This is no longer true. It's genuinely insane. This shift is good for humanity. I think the community is determining a better balance between acceleration and safety. But I do think there's room to be moving even faster!!

201

17K

7 days ago

@iScienceLuvr Well said Tanishq! Medical AI is one of the most exciting frontiers in technology today. Responsible acceleration can transform healthcare and improve millions of lives.

13 days ago

@iScienceLuvr 💯

4katluvrs retweeted

14 days ago

This is one of the most absurd things I've read. I didn't think people could even had such a mindset! How can you seriously be against saving people's lives?! I've worked in medical AI for the past 8 years. Medical AI is one of the few applications even many AI haters I've talked to are excited by. They would definitely welcome a cure to cancer invented by AI. Seeing people want to slow this down is a first for me. Let me actually talk about the article itself. The thing is the author actually doesn't believe AI can cure cancer. So the logic of this whole article is kinda nonsensical. On top of that, the argument for why the author doesn't believe AI can cure cancer is also poorly constructed. Basically the author's argument is the data does not exist yet for AI to cure cancer. I wish the author would consider that there could potentially be novel creative ways to collect relevant data to feed to AI. The author says "There are, in short, many barriers to curing cancer beyond a lack of intelligence." I would respond: there are, in short, many solutions to these barriers, if only we refuse to be limited by a lack of imagination. The author then points to the chaotic release of Fable 5 as a reason for why AI needs to be slowed down which is so odd to me, I don't even know how to respond. Fundamentally this feels like a very zero-sum view of AI progress. Just because there are important questions and challenges that need to be addressed by society as a whole doesn't mean using AI to cure cancer should be slowed down! The article also says a variety of other odd things. For example the author says "I would neither spend months struggling with a research problem I knew AI could solve instantly, nor find as much pleasure in the answers it provided." So if AI found the cure to cancer, the author wouldn't find pleasure in it?! Idk I have a fundamentally different viewpoint about research. I want to know the truth no matter what tool finds it. The author then ends about how writing is a process of self-discovery and human connection and how her wife consoled her as she reflected on these things, but like all of that can happen with AI too. You don't need to use AI to write if you don't want to! You don't need to replace your wife with an AI therapist! Once again, a very zero-sum view of technology. I find this whole article just absolutely revolting. We should not be denigrating the use of AI to cure diseases and save lives, which I personally believe is one of the most important missions on this planet. ------ As a side note, I will clarify I don't actually think AI is going to find a singular magic drug to fully cure cancer in everyone with a single prompt to GPT-7 or whatever. I expect a cure to cancer looks more like preventative health, early diagnostics, and personalized medicine all powered primarily with advances and analyses by frontier AI systems.

iScienceLuvr's tweet photo. This is one of the most absurd things I've read. I didn't think people could even had such a mindset! How can you seriously be against saving people's lives?!

I've worked in medical AI for the past 8 years. Medical AI is one of the few applications even many AI haters I've talked to are excited by. They would definitely welcome a cure to cancer invented by AI. Seeing people want to slow this down is a first for me.

Let me actually talk about the article itself. The thing is the author actually doesn't believe AI can cure cancer. So the logic of this whole article is kinda nonsensical. On top of that, the argument for why the author doesn't believe AI can cure cancer is also poorly constructed. Basically the author's argument is the data does not exist yet for AI to cure cancer. I wish the author would consider that there could potentially be novel creative ways to collect relevant data to feed to AI.

The author says "There are, in short, many barriers to curing cancer beyond a lack of intelligence." I would respond: there are, in short, many solutions to these barriers, if only we refuse to be limited by a lack of imagination.

The author then points to the chaotic release of Fable 5 as a reason for why AI needs to be slowed down which is so odd to me, I don't even know how to respond.

Fundamentally this feels like a very zero-sum view of AI progress. Just because there are important questions and challenges that need to be addressed by society as a whole doesn't mean using AI to cure cancer should be slowed down!

The article also says a variety of other odd things. For example the author says "I would neither spend months struggling with a research problem I knew AI could solve instantly, nor find as much pleasure in the answers it provided."

So if AI found the cure to cancer, the author wouldn't find pleasure in it?! Idk I have a fundamentally different viewpoint about research. I want to know the truth no matter what tool finds it.

The author then ends about how writing is a process of self-discovery and human connection and how her wife consoled her as she reflected on these things, but like all of that can happen with AI too. You don't need to use AI to write if you don't want to! You don't need to replace your wife with an AI therapist! Once again, a very zero-sum view of technology.

I find this whole article just absolutely revolting. We should not be denigrating the use of AI to cure diseases and save lives, which I personally believe is one of the most important missions on this planet.

------

As a side note, I will clarify I don't actually think AI is going to find a singular magic drug to fully cure cancer in everyone with a single prompt to GPT-7 or whatever. I expect a cure to cancer looks more like preventative health, early diagnostics, and personalized medicine all powered primarily with advances and analyses by frontier AI systems.

114

11K

14 days ago

@iScienceLuvr Thank you Tanishq for standing up and enlightening ignorant people. If the author or anyone of her loved ones struggled with cancer, she will not have this take on AI helping cure cancer. It's hard to imagine opposing the use of AI to help cure diseases and save lives.

180