> Comb jellies are ancient marine predators whose hairlike extensions known as cilia refract light as they swim, giving them an iridescent shimmer. They are the largest animals known to use cilia for movement, ...
I've long wondered: What is the difference between cilia and flagella? I've found no authoritative source that differentiates them or that says they are the same (except one paper from decades ago that strongly implies they are the same). It seems like something insiders know implicitly and never bother explaining.
Because a clear distinction is lacking, I don't trust non-expert sources like Wikipedia to be consistent, tor to not confuse them or miss any nuance.
> What is the difference between cilia and flagella?
Broadly and generally:
• cilia come in large groups, in rows or in sheets; flagella come singly or in pairs (occasionally more)
• cilia are short, and they beat backwards and forwards in a coordinated way, like a Mexican wave; flagellae are long, and in prokaryotes, they spin around their axis.
(Eukaryote flagella -- e.g. spermatozoan "tails" -- are a different structure that just resembles the ones in prokaryotes. Prokaryotes are bacteria and archaea -- no cell nucleus. Eukaryotas have cell nuclei and other organelles, such as mitochondria and chloroplasts. Their flagellae bend and flap, they don't spin.)
Take 1 cell. Can you count the moving hair things? Then they're flagella. Is the beastie covered in lots of them, countless, like fur? Then they're cilia.
I read earlier this year about Berg's and Samuel et al.'s (and maybe others') amazing flagellar motor discoveries. I didn't realize they were only prokaryotes; the motor seems like a sophisticated mechanism.
> What is the difference between cilia and flagella?
There are clear structural differences at microscopic level. they are fueled differently. In short, cilia are like eyebrow hairs, short, weak and simple. They appear in groups of tens or thousands, while flagella are like head hairs, unique or double, rarely more than three, and much longer, thicker and more potent, so faster. Structurally more complex also.
They move in a different way also. Lets say that cilia move like a pendulum and flagella moves like the ribbons in rhythmic Gymnastics
A major difference, IMHO, is the abandonment of the rules-based, rights-based, international order. Within it, international war (as opposed to civil war) was nearly impossible - it hardly existed for generations. While you need to prepare for the worst, you need to work for the best, for progress, like so many generations before us in much more difficult circumstances. Preparing for warfare doesn't mean accepting it; we must also work for freedom, including a just peace. It doesn't happen without work.
Again in this era, reactionary and nationalist messaging has dominated and somehow, despite generations of extraordinary success, despite being born into it and seeing its success and superiority, many/most think such an order is infeasible or even undesireable. At the same time, I've seen American leaders in the military industry advocate for becoming accustomed to mass destruction and death.
And shockingly, even the experts and practioners abandoned it and at nearly the height of its success. It's as if a messaging campaign insisted cloud computing was impossible and absurd, and so everyone just stopped using what was obviously working. For the rules- and rights-based order, yes there were outliers and setbacks and threats; that's life. But the entire free, wealthy, industrialized world subscribed, and were untouchably allied, free, safe and prosperous. Now, having abandoned it, all those things have diminished.
What's missing is not acceptance of warfare but ultimate commitment and work for freedom and peace.
I misinterpreted the article. Its more about sharing ideas within the company, because teams and team members are apt to steal ideas and implement them with AI faster than the originator. I guess this was always theoretically a problem but its especially pronounced now because of the commonality of layoffs, and exacerbated at my company due to the failing stock price.
Stop treating AI companies and their software as somehow unconstrained, above-the-law actors. It's delusional that anyone buys that. Regulate them appropriately.
At the same time, mathematicians should be using sophisticated, specialized LLM tools in much more sophisticated ways than lay people. There should be no way lay people can compete. There are new tools to master and if you use your slide rule, you won't keep up. It's a chance for mathematics productivity to boom.
With apologies to Baudelaire: The greatest trick exploitative powers ever played was convincing the people that it was impossible to imagine anything else.
Sometimes blinkering people so that they never ask the question "why is this being done to me" or "why is justice not possible" is much easier than finding an answer that will get them to go away.
If in 2019 someone wrote a program that generated photorealistic child porn on demand, the FBI would break down their door the day after hearing about it.
> Fundamentally I don’t think we have a choice about riding on the AI technology train.
It's amazing how effectively tech leaders have indoctrinated people to give up their power and give the tech people free reign. The same thing has happened in the socio-political realm. Assertions of powerlessness are seen as wisdom.
They could use an LLM to lookup your HN posts and then to wrangle Emacs. Or just decrypt the text in another application - I doubt Emacs is the only platform for whatever crypto method you use. M-x rot13 ?
Oh, did I forget to mention the encryption is implemented in Emacs Lisp?
At some point, the attackers are just going to have to give up and start hitting me with a wrench. Joke's on them though - I'm an Emacs user, I like pain.
It's interesting and fun to implement this stuff; I totally agree. Emacs is amazing.
I worry people will get the wrong idea about security: The application used for decryption doesn't need to be the same as the one used for encryption, at least not for any serious attacker. That would be 'security through obscurity'. They need the encrypted text; they don't need Emacs.
More importantly, no matter who you are, that you implemented the encryption yourself (?) is a major flaw - unless you have a cryptography team that has matured the implementation over a decade or so. Nobody is good enough to do that by themself. As the saying goes, anyone can create an encryption routine that they can't break.
Maybe you do or did really believe those things - lots of people do. There's nothing wrong with it. Saying 'I was joking' is maybe true, maybe it's just using a very common tactic for covering.
Yes, especially if you add up the ocean floors, Antarctica, Siberia and northern Canada ... all far, far more hospitable, useful, and cost-effective than anything in space.
reply