Deep learning doesn’t stop at llms. Honestly, language isn’t a great use case for them. They are—by nature—statistics machines, so if you have a fuck load of data to crunch, they can work very quickly to find patterns. The patterns might not always be correct, but if they are easy to check, then it might be faster to use them and modify the result compared to doing it all yourself.

I don’t know what this person does, though, and it will depend on the specifics of the situation for how they are used.

I want more early vaccine data, actually, so that’s good.

There is a significant decrease in cancer rates among vaccinated compared to unvaccinated, but the early/late divide is less clear. If my statistics is up to snuff (no guarantee there), you can expect an error of ~sqrt(n) in discrete data where n is your count. With the late vaccines, this means an error in the cancer rate of about 2 because they saw ~4 cases (3.2 * 124,000/100,000 ≈ 4). If this is actually overestimating, we could see the rate as 2/124000 or 0.64/40000. In this case, you wouldn’t necessarily expect to see any cases in a sample of 40000.

So it’s not clear from this that early is better than late, though it certainly doesn’t suggest that it’s worse.

The total sample sizes aren’t the problem. It’s the number of people who contracted cervical cancer. I should have been more specific originally: I would want more data to show that early vaccinations are more effective than late ones.

40,000 seems like a lot, but just using data from the late-vaccine group would get an average contraction rate of ~1. That’s enough for an outlier or two to be significant. If 2 of those 40,000 had contracted cervical cancer, it would be a hard sell to say early vaccines cause cancer (though some groups would eat that up). In the same way, I’m not fully convinced here that an early vaccine prevents it more effectively than a later one.

This is just from a cursory overview, but…

N = 40,000 where unvaccinated rates are 8.4 / 100000 or 3.36 per 40,000. Later vaccines brought this down to 3.2 / 100000 or 1.28 / 40000.

So… it’s significant, but I would want more data.

Tropospheric so2 is a problem for reasons beyond warming.

Stratospheric so2 might not be a problem, but geoengineering is always risky.

Plus, since so2 is significantly more reactive than co2, it will be removed from the atmosphere more quickly, meaning that it can only act as a temporary mask without constant maintenance. All-in-all, it’s probably best to see how much damage we are doing early on before we find ourselves in the so2 equivalent of credit card debt and slowly poisoning ourselves to death trying to stay cool.

When those weight loss drugs are actually diabetes drugs that have been co-opted by the market in the same way graphics cards are now used for crypto and ai… yes.

Tenure is—and should be—powerful. UPenn is an R1 institute; if her research is good, it will be hard to do anything until it becomes a significant issue. Like now.

1. that’s why we know it’s a dog whistle and not a coincidence
2. 1488 is one of the more well-known ones insofar as it is used as an example of a dog whistle when explaining the concept more in-depth

It would probably have to be updated in each place it is used, and these articles are unlikely to be frequently updated. It’s only had that name for a few years.

Pinpoint the 5 second interval*

Things that affect your way of life creep into your identity. Disabilities—including physical ones—change how you live, so they change how you view yourself and your relation to society (your identity). “A part of one’s identity” is maybe more fitting, but that’s pretty pedantic.

Also, I’m not sure you should suggest that someone’s identity is somehow less real than a mental condition. Both of them are integral functions of the mind that deeply and directly impact a person’s life. While I grant that many see identity as ‘less important’ or ‘more mutable’ (and thus less impactful) than diagnosable conditions, I’m not sure we should accept that without argument, and this comment inadvertently accepts it a priori.

Or to show the other superpower that we have better rockets.

It (along with Stokes’ theorem (they’re actually the same theorem in different dimensions)) helps yield Maxwell’s equations; specifically, if you want to change the flux of the electric field through a surface (right hand side), you need to change the amount of charge it contains (the source of the divergence on the left hand side). In other words, if you have the same charge contained by a surface, it will have the same flux going through it, which means you can change the surface however you wish and the math will still be the same. Physicists use this to reduce some complex problems into problems on a sphere or a box—objects with nice, easily calculable symmetries.

It’s basically Firefox with betterfox js and a slick css design. It’s also still in alpha

“Humans are a cancer…” is a statement of fact. It is the solution that determines if someone is an ecofascist:

… so we should kill off humans and cure the world

is an ecofascist statement and is a problem.

… and we are going to kill our host

is still in the declarative form. Is is apparently defeatist/fatalist and may or may not be a problem depending on the other views of the person

… so we should stop being cancerous.

is more optimistic of human determinism. I think it is the most hopeful and helpful to our situation, but it is not inherently good, and not coming to this conclusion is not inherently bad.

I’m not 100% sure, but I think anyone with that code can use your dns profile

Maxwell’s equations have already been rewritten into the Dirac equation. Magnetic monopoles are quantum weird and would not show up in undergrad textbooks regardless

Looking this up, I found a bunch of stuff from last year talking about it and only the yahoo source from the past couple days. I also found this:

https://earthsky.org/sun/sun-news-activity-solar-flare-cme-aurora-updates/

Which suggests no m9.8 flare recently

Personally, I want FDA approval to mean it is as provably safe and effective as possible. They said they wanted more evidence before approval, and I think that’s okay. Good, even.

The way the US treats recreational drug use and self-medication is horrific, but it’s not really the domain of the FDA.

I would rather have not-yet-FDA-approved legal-for-personal-use mdma than what we have now or an unproven drug approved by the FDA.

Or is it exactly like saturns rings but we see the whole ring bent round the top because a black hole bends the light around so we can see it?

Hit the nail pretty hard on the head there