Just another reason to not deal with Google. Eventually, gravity is going to catch up with them, and they will never recover, because their business culture is shit. Zero interest or focus on the customers.
If they know who you are, it's easy. If all they have is the DNA, that database will link it to you. They have caught several serial killers because close relatives were in DNA databases, which allowed honing in on a small number of living suspects.
As a lefty who has used right-handed scissors in many situations all my life, it isn't that simple. I can cut with right-handed scissors. It requires changing the way I use them in a way that is a bit weird and unnatural, but it works.
It's very much about what is comfortable for people.
But the essay lays out the reality: For WASM to replace JavaScript, it needs to be better (in the sense of easy to adopt, solves a problem right now) every step of the way. That is not, as yet, true.
I think one can consider what AI will bring to the field of physics. Merit is quite deserving of math and science of building tools which will unlock potential discoveries from here into the future.
Despite all of the talk surrounding AI in the workforce/business world, I think it is actually most important in science.
But, this is more of a applied math than physics. There are many other scientist that contributed more towards understanding of quantum systems, e.g. Aharonov.
Also, as a tool, it has not been as useful as influential as they make it out to be, at least less influential than the work Aharonov in terms of increasing our understanding
I would bet on the opposite, new rules that prevent automation from gumming up the court system. The judiciary is going to be hostile to such approaches.
I imagine lawmakers would be amenable to rules that you can't use GenAI to make legal filings, or that forced arbitration can now use AI to "screen" claims.
The courts are not for the little guy with little claims, nor are they a high volume system.
It would be different if these were new studies, but this is all in the past. This new finding of unreliability doesn't have any impact, hence the Ig nobel instead of the real nobel.
The Ig Nobel is not for trivial achievements, it is to "honor achievements that first make people laugh, and then make them think." This takes different forms.
The part of the wikipedia article you are referencing is an inference from a particular article: "A September 2009 article in The National titled "A noble side to Ig Nobels" says that, although the Ig Nobel Awards are veiled criticism of trivial research, history shows that trivial research sometimes leads to important breakthroughs."
The definition of "blue zones" never had anything to do with average longevity. The entire concept is predicated on unusual numbers of centenarians, not long average life spans. In fact, as is pointed out in the Ig Nobel winning paper, Blue Zone places like Sardinia, Okinawa, and Ikaria have always been paradoxical: they are supposed to have higher numbers of unusually long lived people, but have shorter average lifespans than the rest of their countries. The paradox goes away with the finding that the count of centenarians is incorrect. There's nothing left to the Blue Zone concept without the centenarians.
Yes, it is definitely satirical. But isn't specifically for "trivial", it gets deployed in different ways.
Some of the awards are straight up criticism of the research, like for bunk homeopathy stuff. It was awarded for the prank paper used in the Sokal affair, in which it's definitely praise of what Sokal did. Sometimes it is awarded for a bizarre but funny thing from something being studied in another more serious context like the magnetic frog levitation paper.
What topic are you suggesting to search on Pubmed? I have yet to see anything that supports some places have places with exceptionally long lived people. Especially to the massive outlier values that is often put forth. (So, 105 is not that crazy of a number to consider. 110, however, already starts to stretch credibility quite heavily.)
(Leaving discussion of the ignobel to the other thread.)
So link me a single bloody paper that goes over this? Searching "blue zones" on pubmed shows mainly things older than this paper. And a lot of stuff that, frankly, feels highly suspicious.
Similarly, if there are places that have debunked this paper, link one. It is a genuinely interesting topic to read about.
Please see the comment history for my opinion on blue zones, a link, and the areas to search on Pubmed. You can even find the areas of blue zone recommendations in TFA. You're not supposed to search for blue zones, but for studies on those recommendations (plant heavy or mederteranian diets, exercise, etc).
Google is a drag.
reply