MicronewsHacker News and the AI labs on X | Items | 60 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Updated | |||
micahflee.com
x.com
commoncrawl.org
x.com
arxiv.org
filipovski.net
mimo.xiaomi.com
cosmicave.org
arstechnica.com
arxiv.org
wsj.com
krebsonsecurity.com
barndoor.ai
x.com
businessinsider.com
arxiv.org
reuters.com
github.com
rohanbansal.com
github.com
euronews.com
news.ycombinator.com
Montana passed a law called SB535. It builds on right-to-try (pre-approval access with informed consent, Phase 1 safety data etc.) but goes much further, fixing problems with those laws. Alex Tabarrok called it "the most important regulatory innovation in drug approval in my lifetime" ( ). Was posted here but died in /new ( ). The mods suggested this post. I contributed ideas to the law and am now implementing it through my company. I invested in biotech for years and watched companies struggle. I built the biotech ecosystem in Prospera as an alternative, concluded it was too early, and now think Montana is the best place to prove this. Why this exists: When FDA approves a bad drug, heads roll. When it delays a good one, the deaths are statistical and nobody gets blamed ("invisible graveyard"). So the incentive is overcaution, which is why the cost per approved drug has roughly doubled every 9 years for decades ("Eroom's Law"). Founders are in the "Valley of Death" around Phase 1: grants are no longer available, and commercial money wants assurance the drug will pass the next trial. Only ~10% of post-Phase 1 drugs get approved, but 68% of failed trials don’t stop because they found lack of safety or efficacy but commercial reasons (Williams et al., PLOS ONE 2015). Federal Right to Try and Expanded Access haven't fixed this. Federal reform is super-hard. What Montana allows: A physician can give an experimental treatment outside a trial if: it completed FDA Phase 1 under an active IND; a state-registered private review board (ETRB) approved the protocol; it's delivered at a state-licensed clinic; consent exceeds the federal standard & adverse events need to be reported. The key is: sponsors and clinics can charge. Why this time it's different: The risk-reward ratio is what's broken. Right to Try and Expanded Access don't let sponsors charge, so treating a patient is risk plus expense. Montana is the first state law where sponsors of IND-stage drugs can price in that risk. Trial recruitment today is a price-control system: per-patient cost is around $50-100k, typically has a ceiling upward on what it can pay patients ("undue inducement") and a floor downward (no profit, only at cost in RTT / EA). Montana removes both (I know this will lead to lots of debate, let’s have it.) So this is not a free for all, the additional liberties come with tough oversight. An ETRB is Montana's version of an IRB: safety review, consent, mandatory outcome reporting, and you can't withhold safety information from patients. That’s the truth-funding mechanism. What companies can do now: If you have a Phase 1 asset stuck in the Valley of Death: treat patients, negotiate payment, get real-world data, use it to sharpen your Phase 2/3 design. Disclosure: my company formed the first ETRB. The model is review fees, like an IRB; no equity in applicants, no payment by outcome; COI policy and board bios public; decision letters published with applicant consent; annual outcome report required. Objections: - Someone gets hurt? Same as trials and ordinary care: US legal system, legal recourse. - FDA shuts it down? They haven't said they won't, but historically FDA goes after grey-market clinics, not state laws; we're asking for safe harbor, but some companies aren't waiting. - Snake oil? Bad actors want to fly under the radar, and Montana makes that hard. What's needed: Biotechs with Phase 1+ assets willing to move before full FDA assurance, to build the evidence that gets the agency on board - the point is not to skip FDA, but to reduce the cost of data. And ex-FDA reviewers, IND operators, IRB members telling us where this breaks. Happy to answer anything.
opensource.googleblog.com
x.com
chuckgreenman.com
temertymedicine.utoronto.ca
x.com
x.com
linum.ai
claude.com
x.com
testing.googleblog.com
will-keleher.com
blog.jim-nielsen.com
autism.org.uk
x.com
news.ycombinator.com
Hi, I built Chat-Man because I wanted a cheap way to give my agents access to WhatsApp without integrating a WhatsApp library separately in every project. You get WhatsApp MCP server, so you can connect WhatsApp to an agent and programmatically read, search, extract and send messages - but also have a web UI for non-techies. You can also receive webhooks for incoming messages for starred conversations. What you can do with the MCP? -Read WhatsApp messages and turn them into CRM records -Summarise conversations or groups -Extract structured information from messages -Find messages, participants or other WhatsApp data -Send messages -Manage group memberships Of course.. you always need to follow data protection regulation. The web UI: -Edit group details -See who joined or left -See who is most active -Export group members -Match members against a CSV (e.g. from a CRM) -Bulk message members -Bulk kick members -Create invite links For individual contacts, you can send messages directly from the UI. Why I built it for myself? I needed WhatsApp access for several projects (hermo.ai, florahaus.co.uk, …) and didn't want to pay for a WhatsApp integration for each project. Link: I’d love to get some feedback, especially from people building agents that need access to WhatsApp. Fabian
bbc.co.uk
institute.deepmind.com
frvr.com
agentlien.github.io
I just uploaded a new article describing how a modern video game texture is stored in graphics memory, why it's done this way, and how it may differ between platforms. It is called Anatomy of a Texture.
mustafa-suleyman.ai
asteriskmag.substack.com
openai.com
arxiv.org
wired.com
oldmanrahul.com
cloudx.ai
stale.jock.pl
github.com
enclave.ai
ycombinator.com
tomshardware.com
manchestereveningnews.co.uk
gultsch.social
developer.nvidia.com
tomshardware.com
status.salesforce.com
techwontsave.us
bbc.com