Yes, it's like git but access to the repo is defined in the repo itself (using public key cryptography); likely with virtual machine (if it's ethereum, which is likely). There's not much more conceptually there.
It's probably the only part where hardware development (FPGA or ASIC) has a significant edge: "time travel debugging" is the norm, where you have a wave window with your design state cycle by cycle. Can't wait to see more of that in software!
> The answer, of course, would be research. All the students were working the same amount. Their work habits were different.
The proper research here would have been to make the student change their habit and see if they became better musicians as a result. This article isn't research, it's writing down a fact and then trying to extract conclusions when none can be made.
Transferring $230,000 to your cousin's account, and hoping to stay out of jail, by telling everyone that a deep-fake CEO told you to do that is an incredibly dumb way to steal.
I mean, people do incredibly dumb things, so it is certainly possible. I doubt it, though.
We find that the near-miss group naturally received significantly less NIH funding in the first five years following treatment, averaging $0.29 million less per person (Fig. 2d, t-test p-value < 0.05, Cohen’s d = 0.28), which is consistent with prior studies. Yet the funding difference between the two groups disappeared in the second five-year period (Fig. 2d, t-test p-value > 0.1, Cohen’s d = 0.02).
From the paper [0]. This does not look like the rejects found similar opportunities in more suitable places.
