Raul Ignacio

6.8K posts

Raul Ignacio

Raul Ignacio

@fuzzyrulo

Mexico Beigetreten Mayıs 2009
3.1K Folgt327 Follower
Raul Ignacio
Raul Ignacio@fuzzyrulo·
Antes de la fecha límite de registro de celulares, se viene la negación a recargar saldo si no estás registrado. En teoría es ilegal, pero a ver, demándalos.
Español
0
0
0
3
Raul Ignacio retweetet
Rebel Cats
Rebel Cats@rebel_cats·
🚨 @AlessandraRdlv @AlcCuauhtemocMx @GobCDMX Esa escultura en Zona Rosa la hizo Agustín Casas, no el polaco Igor Mitoraj, les están tomando el pelo. 👀 Háganle justicia a los dos artistas cambiando la placa y poniendo el nombre del verdadero autor. Gracias. 🙏🏼
Español
8
55
223
18.5K
Marjory González Vivanco
@HarimBGutierrez No creo. Justo a ellos no creo. Porque de Déco tiene nada, es puro Art Nacó. Digo, con todas las que le quedó a deber Porfis al país, su monumento al merengue junto a la Alameda tiene mucho estilo.
Español
2
1
1
307
Rogue FitSurgeon
Rogue FitSurgeon@FitSurgeon·
Jajajajajja esto que??? Lleno de paracetamoles?? Eso es abasto??? De donde sacan estas mmdeses?
Rogue FitSurgeon tweet media
Español
8
13
118
5.9K
Raul Ignacio retweetet
México, ¿cómo vamos?
México, ¿cómo vamos?@MexicoComoVamos·
🟣 Identificamos dos momentos del nearshoring en México. La primera ola, entre 2019 y 2021, estuvo asociada a la diversificación de proveeduría desde China durante el primer mandato de Donald Trump y se aceleró con la pandemia de COVID-19, que evidenció la necesidad de cadenas de suministro más cercanas al consumidor final. bit.ly/4tWMkqo
México, ¿cómo vamos? tweet media
Español
1
2
7
257
Raul Ignacio retweetet
Xavier Tello, MD 🇪🇺🇬🇱
El inexperto Lalo @EduardoClark, anunció ayer estas maquinitas dispensadoras para "22 medicamentos" que si bien, parecen una mala idea, la realidad es que son, además de un absurdo, una de las burradas más grandes que haya propuesto esta administración. abro un hilo: 🧵
Xavier Tello, MD 🇪🇺🇬🇱 tweet media
Español
133
896
2K
90K
Raul Ignacio
Raul Ignacio@fuzzyrulo·
@JaviStitch nada confiable, dirá lo que maximize sus ganancias personales y punto
Español
0
0
1
7
Raul Ignacio retweetet
Grecia Quiroz Michoacán 2027
NOS QUIEREN QUITAR DEL CAMINO. Posicionamiento Del Movimiento Independiente Del Sombrero Denunciamos públicamente que la Reforma Electoral que el día de mañana se pretende imponer en Michoacán: NO es una reforma democrática, no es una reforma técnica y no es una reforma ciudadana. Es una reforma hecha desde el miedo. Es una reforma diseñada para intentar detener por la vía legal lo que no han podido detener con ataques, desprestigio y persecución política. Porque hay que decirlo con claridad: Pensaron que quitándole la vida a Carlos Manzo este movimiento desaparecería. Pero se equivocaron. Carlos Manzo no era solamente una persona. Carlos Manzo sembró una causa y las causas que nacen del pueblo no se matan. Hoy después de no haber podido borrar su legado, después de no haber podido destruir la esperanza ciudadana que él despertó, ahora quieren usar la ley electoral para intentar bloquear al movimiento que lleva su esencia, su lucha y su memoria. El documento de reforma propone que las campañas independientes deban realizarse de forma estrictamente individual, autónoma e independiente, prohibiendo cualquier coordinación, asociación, colaboración estratégica o actuación conjunta entre candidaturas independientes. También pretende impedir que compartan plataformas políticas, propaganda, imagen, colores, símbolos, emblemas, estrategias de comunicación. En pocas palabras : quieren que los independientes vayan, solos, divididos, débiles, aislados y sin identidad. Quieren que los ciudadanos caminen solos. Quieren prohibir que la ciudadanía se organice como movimiento. Y a este lo llamamos bloqueo político intencional. Quieren cancelar candidaturas si la gente nos identifica como parte de una misma causa. Desde aquí invito al Congreso del Estado de Michoacán: Ojalá no se presten a una reforma regresiva. No usen la ley para perseguir movimientos ciudadanos. No conviertan al Congreso en instrumento del miedo. No aprueben una reforma que limita derechos políticos. No manchen la vida democrática de Michoacán. A las Diputadas y Diputados les digo: la historia los va a juzgar. Porque una cosa es legislar para mejorar la democracia y otra para cerrarle la puerta al pueblo. Y esta reforma no regula al contrario; bloquea. ASÍ QUE PUEBLO DE MICHOACÁN ABRAN BIEN LOS OJOS DE QUIENES QUIEREN SEGUIR IMPONIÉNDOSE A LA VOLUNTAD DEL PUEBLO, CUENTAN CONMIGO Y VAMOS A DARLE, QUE NADA NI NADIE DETENGA LA VOLUNTAD DE UN PUEBLO UNIDO. ¡TOPÉ DONDE TOPE Y NI UN PASO ATRÁS!
Grecia Quiroz Michoacán 2027 tweet media
Español
329
6.6K
14.1K
270.7K
Raul Ignacio retweetet
Raul Ignacio retweetet
La Jefita
La Jefita@lajefita·
Y se repite la historia… México siempre temeroso de tomar buenas decisiones en materia de salud pública. Ya dos de los países sede pusieron restricciones a personas de las zonas con brote de ébola. ¿Qué espera México?
Español
76
246
880
15.5K
Raul Ignacio
Raul Ignacio@fuzzyrulo·
ah pero quieren registrar nuestros teléfonos...
Dark Web Intelligence@DailyDarkWeb

🇲🇽 A threat actor is advertising an alleged breach involving Mexico’s CONACYT platform (conacyt.gob.mx), claiming exposure of approximately 384,000 researcher and academic-related records. According to the listing, the dataset allegedly includes: • researcher and reviewer contact information • institutional affiliations • email addresses and phone numbers • reviewer assignment and committee data • review cycle and project participation details • profile metadata and activity timestamps • user credential-related information The exposure of academic and research-sector data can create significant risks beyond simple spam campaigns. Research institutions and government science organizations are frequent targets for: • intellectual property theft • academic espionage • targeted phishing against researchers and reviewers • credential stuffing attacks • social engineering operations targeting grant and review processes The mention of reviewer assignments, committee roles, and conflict-of-interest flags could also raise concerns around confidentiality and integrity within scientific review workflows. At this stage, the authenticity and scope of the alleged dataset remain unverified. #DDW #Intelligence #CONACYT #DarkWeb

Español
0
0
1
11
Raul Ignacio retweetet
Kegham Balian
Kegham Balian@kbalian90·
"Soldiers are spitting, too. The soldier, in uniform!"
English
179
5.2K
10.9K
392.4K
Raul Ignacio retweetet
Mexicanos Contra la Corrupción
🔴 Hoy en MCCI cumplimos 10 años de investigar para exhibir la corrupción en México. Han sido años de ataques y resistencia, pero seguimos trabajando con independencia y compromiso. Gracias por acompañarnos en este camino. contralacorrupcion.mx/en-10-anios-de…
Español
65
662
1.4K
42.2K
Raul Ignacio
Raul Ignacio@fuzzyrulo·
hay hot sale de memoria RAM?
English
0
0
0
17
Raul Ignacio retweetet
Luis Carlos 🏴‍☠️ One Piece
Se desaparecieron los españoles que la primera semana de enero le decían a los venezolanos que "Estados Unidos solo quiere el petróleo de Venezuela" y usaban palabras como "soberanía" y "derecho internacional". Ya vieron quiénes se beneficiaban del saqueo.
Luis Chicott@luischicott

Wao qué increíble lo de Zapatero. Quién iba a imaginar que alguien que se la pasaba metido en Venezuela trabajando con EL CHAVISMO todos los años iba a estar involucrado en una trama millonaria de corrupción y mafia.

Español
20
1K
2.6K
44.9K
Raul Ignacio
Raul Ignacio@fuzzyrulo·
This reminds me some interview where @jeremyphoward explains how he adopted the discipline to dedícate certain percentage of his time (~20%) to learn new things. Truly inspirational for me and yet attainable for many of us
Millie Marconi@MillieMarconnni

A mathematician at Bell Labs noticed that the scientists who won Nobel Prizes and the ones who never amounted to anything were equally smart, equally hardworking, and equally credentialed, and the only thing that separated them was a single question almost nobody is brave enough to ask themselves before they die. His name was Richard Hamming. He spent 30 years at Bell Labs, in the same building as John Tukey, Walter Brattain, and a long list of physicists who took home Nobel prizes for work they did down the hall from his office, including the legendary Claude Shannon. His invention of error-correcting codes made modern computing possible. He has won the Turing Award. And all the while he was creating his own legacy he was secretly doing a study on the people around him. The study was straightforward. 2 Teams. The legends and the lost. Same I.Q.s. Degrees same. Same desk hours. Same access to the world’s best resources. And yet, at the end of 40 years in their careers, one group had changed entire fields, and the other group could not be remembered by their own colleagues five years after retirement. He wanted to discover what the actual difference was. In March 1986, he stood before 200 researchers in a Bellcore auditorium and told them what he had seen. He said it all came down to one question. And hardly anyone he ever met was willing to ask it directly. He called it the Friday-afternoon ritual. He spent years blocking out his Friday afternoons and not doing anything productive with them every week. No experiments. No meetings. No deliverables. He called it Great Thoughts Time. He sat down with a notebook and asked himself a couple of questions in order. What are the most relevant problems in my discipline? And why I am not working on either of them.” Most weeks, the answer was the same, he said. For a week now he had marched confidently in a direction he did not think was the most important direction. He was a goer. He worked a bit. He was getting clean results that would publish in respected journals. ( And for five days straight he'd been lying to himself about whether any of it mattered. The reason almost nobody does this ritual is because the honest answer is unbearable. The thing is that if you sit down on a Friday afternoon and say out loud that you are not working on the most important problem in your field, now you have to do something about it. You have an immediate change in direction, or you have to keep lying to yourself every week from that point on. Most people choose the lie. In the short term it’s cheaper, but over a career it’s more expensive. Hamming took the ritual a step further in the Bell Labs cafeteria. He began approaching scientists he barely knew, asking them what they thought the most important problems in their field were. A week later he would ask them why they had not worked on these problems. Eventually people wouldn't have lunch with him. “I had to keep finding new tables,” he said. Nobody had a good answer for that, and being around someone who kept asking it made every meal feel like a performance review. The line that broke me is the line that most people skim over in the transcript. His words: If you do not work on an important problem you are unlikely to do important work. That’s not motivational line. It is a rational one. You cannot make a great result from a problem that does not matter. Input restricts the output. The choice of the problem is the ceiling of the career. The transcript has been freely available on the internet for almost 40 years. Stripe Press published the complete lectures as a book. Naval Ravikant quotes it all the time. It’s still given out to new hires at every serious engineering lab in Silicon Valley. Most people will not run the ritual this Friday. They will be busy. They always are.

English
0
0
0
10
Raul Ignacio retweetet
Millie Marconi
Millie Marconi@MillieMarconnni·
A mathematician at Bell Labs noticed that the scientists who won Nobel Prizes and the ones who never amounted to anything were equally smart, equally hardworking, and equally credentialed, and the only thing that separated them was a single question almost nobody is brave enough to ask themselves before they die. His name was Richard Hamming. He spent 30 years at Bell Labs, in the same building as John Tukey, Walter Brattain, and a long list of physicists who took home Nobel prizes for work they did down the hall from his office, including the legendary Claude Shannon. His invention of error-correcting codes made modern computing possible. He has won the Turing Award. And all the while he was creating his own legacy he was secretly doing a study on the people around him. The study was straightforward. 2 Teams. The legends and the lost. Same I.Q.s. Degrees same. Same desk hours. Same access to the world’s best resources. And yet, at the end of 40 years in their careers, one group had changed entire fields, and the other group could not be remembered by their own colleagues five years after retirement. He wanted to discover what the actual difference was. In March 1986, he stood before 200 researchers in a Bellcore auditorium and told them what he had seen. He said it all came down to one question. And hardly anyone he ever met was willing to ask it directly. He called it the Friday-afternoon ritual. He spent years blocking out his Friday afternoons and not doing anything productive with them every week. No experiments. No meetings. No deliverables. He called it Great Thoughts Time. He sat down with a notebook and asked himself a couple of questions in order. What are the most relevant problems in my discipline? And why I am not working on either of them.” Most weeks, the answer was the same, he said. For a week now he had marched confidently in a direction he did not think was the most important direction. He was a goer. He worked a bit. He was getting clean results that would publish in respected journals. ( And for five days straight he'd been lying to himself about whether any of it mattered. The reason almost nobody does this ritual is because the honest answer is unbearable. The thing is that if you sit down on a Friday afternoon and say out loud that you are not working on the most important problem in your field, now you have to do something about it. You have an immediate change in direction, or you have to keep lying to yourself every week from that point on. Most people choose the lie. In the short term it’s cheaper, but over a career it’s more expensive. Hamming took the ritual a step further in the Bell Labs cafeteria. He began approaching scientists he barely knew, asking them what they thought the most important problems in their field were. A week later he would ask them why they had not worked on these problems. Eventually people wouldn't have lunch with him. “I had to keep finding new tables,” he said. Nobody had a good answer for that, and being around someone who kept asking it made every meal feel like a performance review. The line that broke me is the line that most people skim over in the transcript. His words: If you do not work on an important problem you are unlikely to do important work. That’s not motivational line. It is a rational one. You cannot make a great result from a problem that does not matter. Input restricts the output. The choice of the problem is the ceiling of the career. The transcript has been freely available on the internet for almost 40 years. Stripe Press published the complete lectures as a book. Naval Ravikant quotes it all the time. It’s still given out to new hires at every serious engineering lab in Silicon Valley. Most people will not run the ritual this Friday. They will be busy. They always are.
Millie Marconi tweet media
English
77
598
2.5K
226.2K
Raul Ignacio retweetet
Anthropic
Anthropic@AnthropicAI·
Anthropic co-founder Chris Olah was invited to speak at today's presentation of Pope Leo XIV's encyclical "Magnifica humanitas." Read the full text of his remarks: anthropic.com/news/chris-ola…
English
407
674
4.4K
1.2M
Raul Ignacio
Raul Ignacio@fuzzyrulo·
@palomaparda la pregunta evoluciona a los mandos medios: qué mando de estudios sociales inunda a sus equipos de IA? tenía este estudios sociales? En equivalencia los mandos de programadores (no necesariamente programadores) son responsables de la perspectiva (e.g. Altman que es impresentable)
Español
0
0
1
201
@palomaparda.bsky.social
@palomaparda.bsky.social@palomaparda·
Y a todo esto, ¿cuántos cursos de ciencias sociales se imparten a programadores y generadores de IAs? Porque a nosotras nos tienen inundadas de capacitaciones en IA, pero sigue siendo increíble lo que las ciencias de datos ignoran sobre estudios sociales.
Español
7
29
203
5.6K