There wasn't any known active AI back then, but statistics on popular ideas and internet content was already a thing, and speech pollution based on those assessments had already started to spread fast, manually outputted.
Sure, a lot of good content came out since then. But the amount of garbage... it's immense and very difficult to sort out automatically.
The major issue is that this garbage then _became_ the norm. Only people who lived back then can remember what it was. For new folk, it looks just like a generational shift. However, it is quite obvious that some aspects of this shift were... unnatural (in the sense of not being spontaneous cultural manifestations).
I mentioned explicitly that I see what happened as distinct from a natural generational shift.
There are many phenomena around that era to support what I am saying. Like, for example, the first massive political campaign to leverage internet as its primary vehicle.
Not sure why you're getting downvoted, content farms have been a thing for a long time, and many a spam website used crappy markov chains to generate even more "content". Anything that could be marketed by company had its search results drowned in hand-crafted bland marketing slop, and even before ChatGPT got popular searching for things like recipes (or, god forbid, generic windows error messages) was a nightmare. And a lot of that garbage is in LLMs' training data.
The technology used on this same article was funded by Max Planck (Germany), Sweden and the NIH to a french and a USA scientist. Should those collaborations stop?
That may be partially true, but it's also important to understand that the US benefited a lot from that. Scientists from all over the world moved to work in the US, students looked forward to studying there and working in US companies, etc.
That is changing. Children in my country are moving from learning English to French and German in order to study in European universities. This started after Brexit and will accelerate now.
And those grant awards need to demonstrate how they benefit the USA. Many are (were) related to disease surveillance in developing countries to prevent pandemics, or collaborations with countries that are more advanced than the US in niche areas.
The reason for this is very pragmatic actually. We don’t have enough researchers of a particular specialty in one country alone. When you get that specialized the air is very rare.
By pooling our funding / effort we can create a larger body of collaborators to solve problems faster and better.
It could be that the organizations are funding wild stuff that isn’t salient. I’ll concede that.
However, in basic sciences there are so few specialists it is important to share resources. The funding is worse than ever (hello 2006!), and that trend is unlikely to reverse for a while.
Source: I worked in bioenergetics for 10y, my collaborators were from Hungary, Chile, Canada, Israel, Italy, and more! At a major conference on mito energetics they all fit in one big lecture hall (100ish?)
Indeed - does it matter who performed the research? If the CRISPR reasearch were performed in another country, would that change the outcome for the infant?
The ONLY accounts I have that require SMS and offer no other 2FA are financial institutions. They already have more information on their customers than most other businesses I can think of. Heck, I WANT my bank to have my phone number so they can call me if there's ever a problem. I just want insecure SMS to stop being the only minor hurdle between a fraudster and my life savings.
Companies do SMS because their VP of security compliance demands 2FA and because it's easy and has mature existing third-party vendor support. No tinfoil hat needed for this one.
No, I think he's mostly right but it is a little more complicated. Most services demand a cell number verification on account creation for user tracking and identification under the guise of security for you. The SMS 2FA setup flow just helps push the user into coughing it up and helps sell the security cover story. Theoretically this helps prevent abuse, but there's no reason they have to abuse the data themselves after getting it for that. Its just that they will. They'll even lie to your face that they only use the number for security purposes and then use it for advertising anyway.
I implemented 2FA for my previous employer and we would have gladly skipped SMS 2FA if we could get away with it. It's more expensive for the company and the customer. And it sucks to implement because you have to integrate with a phone service. The whole phone system is unreliable or has unexpected problems (e.g. using specific words in a message can get your texts blocked). Problems with the SMS 2FA is a pain for customer service too.
Well done! I've been thinking about something like this for a long time. I considered using the Google API to check for calendars but the camera is so much better an idea!!
it's outsourcing by choice rather than necessity. Europe can grow its own blood. The much more permissive laws in the U.S. which cause an oversupply for local usage mean it's cheaper to import it. During periods of high demand that exceed current supplies, countries are typically able to increase donations substantially to cover the shortfall, and long term, could pursue similar laws to the U.S. There is no prospect of blood being a meaningful bargaining chip in a trade war.
Yep, blood donation infrastructure isn't like an oil pipeline or a refinery. Sure, it'll be painful for a little while, but it doesn't take nearly as long to set up, especially if there's an urgent shortage motivating a country to move fast.
In the past the WHO recommended countries don't compensate for blood or plasma donations. The following countries countries decided to still allow compensation for plasma donations for drug products: Austria, the Czech Republic, Germany, and the US.
Its just that the US has the largest population of these five countries. And generally the rest of the countries outside the five don't get sufficient plasma donations to make the drug products needed for their patients and have to import it.
The plasma can be separated out to different products to treat various diseases many of them genetic.
The only ones to hold accountable are the WHO and those countries that followed their advice. If more countries paid for plasma donations there would be more supply of these drug products available.
People could just donate more. Just make a campaign that you can Stick it to Trump and Help Your Country and you would get an influx of plasma.
As long as the demand is not steep. Since you can do it only a dozen or so times each year according to recommendations. (American Red Cross recommends every 28 days; private donors are not beholden to that)
Globalization has led to most countries deluding themselves about supply chain vulnerabilities for a long time. COVID was the first shock. Now Trump's tariffs are the second.
However, I think people grossly overestimate the degree to which this state of affairs is static. If the supply chain shows itself to be vulnerable, economies often adjust quite easily. Even when it's not "easy", like natural gas in Europe post-2022, it's still very much doable without too much hullabaloo and frozen seniors.
Point being: if it no longer makes sense to import 38% of blood from the US or whatever, it'll be imported from elsewhere or made locally, and that's pretty much the whole story. This is true of most goods and services, though not all.
That's only really true for raw materials and assemblies.
Chip production is the very obvious and real hole in this argument. It'll take half to a full decade to get new chip fabs up to what TSMC's Taiwan fabs are doing now.
Quality steel production and machining is going to take time and investment as well.
This sucks and I feel really sorry for OP. Every once in a while you stumble into a relationship with the company like this and you feel so impotent as to preventing others from falling into the same trap.
Good on OP for not giving up and for going after insurance over and over.
It's fun to have game traditions like this. I always wished there were more coop games growing up for N64 because I had a lot of fun playing them with my brother.
Then we moved away and switched to PC gaming but it's just not the same.
I don't see how you could come to that conclusion. Here are the facts:
Biden:
* Nonviolent Drug Offenders: Biden focused heavily on criminal justice reform, commuting the sentences of nearly 2,500 individuals convicted of nonviolent drug offenses.
* Death Row Inmates: He commuted the sentences of 37 federal death row inmates to life imprisonment without parole.
* Preemptive Pardons: Biden issued preemptive pardons to several individuals, including Dr. Anthony Fauci and retired Gen. Mark Milley, to protect them from potential future prosecutions.
* Hunter Biden: In a controversial move, Biden granted a sweeping pardon to his son, Hunter Biden, covering any offenses between January 1, 2014, and December 1, 2024.
Only the last one is at all controversial. I disagree with it, but it was clearly a protective pardon instigated by rhetoric and actions by Trump.
Trump:
* Political Allies: Trump frequently granted clemency to individuals with personal or political connections, such as Michael Flynn, Roger Stone, and Paul Manafort.
* Capitol Rioters: In a sweeping move, Trump pardoned over 1,500 individuals involved in the January 6 Capitol riot.
* Controversial Figures: He also pardoned individuals like former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich and Michele Fiore, a former Las Vegas City Council member convicted of misusing charity funds.
All 3 categories of Trump's pardons are controversial. 1 vs thousands.
I did read through it, i don’t generally just jump to a random point in the comment chain to start reading. The topic of something being brought up doesn’t necessarily mean its the topic being discussed. Keep your personal feelings in check and don’t react so emotionally.
reply