There was some 90s shareware DOS visualizer for various 4D shapes. I think it might have been called Hypercube, and thought this article might have been about it. It wasn’t, but was quite informative nonetheless!
No, it’s a secret FISA court decision that the public can’t see but a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee can, but he can’t tell us what he’s seen. But he can ask questions to get the surveillance state to pull another Clapper-esque whopper and get away with it.
The medical standard for death has equated it with brain death since at least 1981, though arguably it started in the 1960s. The history of the definition of death[1] is fascinating.
I’m putting the current medical definition aside, we’ve been pushing the boundaries of what’s possible and who knows what the next centuries redefine. For the longest time in human history “clinical death” was almost always followed by permadeath.
As the person doing the dying you can’t rationalize it as “no worries, it’s just clinical, I’ll be back”. You die, it’s light out, later on, a blink for you, you recover and are told “you were clinically dead”. You experienced death for all intents and purposes because I don’t think there’s a cognitive process that allows you to differentiate the stages. Heck, deep sleep might be how death “feels” like.
Do people fear death (excluding suffering) because of the threshold itself or the FOMO? Missing on what would come next?
Fair enough, and I had the (mis?)fortune of watching folks go through that as an EMT.
For sure when clinical death starts (even if later reversed), some processes kick in that never would otherwise activate, totally agree. The commonality of near-death-experience suggests something very basal.
LLMs work better as translators than any non-AI translators though. Because they are able to translate not just words, but also capture the context of what's being said. If you translate a common phrase like "home, sweet home" to another language, it may or may not make any sense if you translate it word-by-word, like traditional translators would normally do... but LLMs know "what you mean" and will use the equivalent saying in the target language, even if that use entirely different words.
I dunno? I think modern translators get idioms nowadays don’t they? If not, they should.
how hard is it to recognize common idioms and at least state the literal meaning followed by the semantic meaning? there are at most what, a few thousand per language?
I think he meant non-human translators, like Google translate etc. Those translations were indeed not making any sense sometimes. Although I have heard that they improved Google translate in the recent years.
We've had machine translation for a while and I don't think anybody particularly thinks of it as a bad thing? Writing something and then having a machine directly translate it (possibly imperfectly) is a lot different than a machine writing the thing.
Personally I would like people to try learning other languages more (it's hard but rewarding) but you can't learn every language ever, and it is really hard to learn a language to fluency.
> We've had machine translation for a while and I don't think anybody particularly thinks of it as a bad thing?
Not all, but some machine translators can be comically (if not horrifically) bad sometimes. Search Twitter-become-X for examples. Native writers can't pick a working machine translator unless they are explicitly allowed to do so themselves.
But that a site might still want to discourage it, to avoid general degradation. It is a tradeoff.
If someone can write in the target language, just not well, a model could be asked to point out problems for the writer to fix. Rewrite a difficult sentence.
My only knowledge of this company is as a manufacturer of gurneys for ambulances.
I guess they have some sensitive data on our emergency services organizations and their headquarters addresses and accounts payable people, maybe PII on signatories (officers, board members & “important people”) and whatnot.
Probably worse in the boring B2B way, not the consumer-breach way. Stryker is deep in hospital operations, so the immediate risk is supply chain and support disruption rather than leaked patient data. The Krebs post says one hospital system already could not order surgical supplies, and if the Intune remote wipe detail is true, recovering internal devices and admin workflows could take a while even without any medical devices themselves being compromised.
This is not true. The hack did not affect Stryker products sold to hospitals and clinics, it only impacted Stryker employees work and personal devices. Yes 50tb of data was exfiltrated and it remains to be seen what that data is and how it might impact products down the line.
Medical equipment reps often play a pretty active role in patient care. Can't get in touch with a rep to put a device into its MRI safe mode? No MRI for you. Can't get a rep in to help the surgeon with the type in hardware they were going to install? No surgery for you.
People's AICDs aren't going to start exploding, but I'm pretty confident this will hamper care for many patients.
Yes, there are better compression options today.
reply