On top of that, the actual results are behind a paywall and can be very iffy. It sounds like there were only 12 people in the 6-hour group and in each of the other groups. And no indications about other traits like sex, smoking or other habits, and so on. Too small numbers to guarantee against statistical fluctuations. And the “significant” in the abstract may indicate that they used p-values to quantify their results, which are today considered iffy by a large chunk of the statistics community…

“Science of the Total Environment” journal? 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 Too silly even for a 3rd-rate sci-fi film…

For a moment I thought the “here’s how” meant “here’s how to play in mud and dirt”. Let’s do it like pros, folks!

these autonomous agents represent the next step in the evolution of large language models (LLMs), seamlessly integrating into business processes to handle functions such as responding to customer inquiries, identifying sales leads, and managing inventory.

I really want to see what happens. It seems to me these “agents” are still useless in handling tasks like customer inquiries. Hopefully customers will get tired and switch to companies that employ competent humans instead…

Cheers! Got a bit clearer now.

Appreciated if someone can explain what is the problem and its context in simple terms 🙏

I understand the GNU “framework” is built on free, open source software. So I don’t understand how one can “discover” that there were pieces of non-free software there… They were put there by mistake?

😂

The current security philosophy almost seems to be: “In order to make it secure, make it difficult to use”. This is why I propose to go a step further: “In order to make it secure, just don’t make it”. The safest account is the one that doesn’t exist or that can’t be accessed by anyone, including its owner.

We aren’t supposed to accept that. We can simply not use their software. And as users that’s the only power we have on devs. But it’s a power that only works on devs who are interested in having many users.

Nobel prize in computer science. Looks like the Nobel Prize committee has forgotten what Physics is.

Fully agree.

It’s worth posting the blog post you linked.

Personally I disagree on value of sex/nude scenes – but it’s a subjective matter of course. Your final argument is absolutely fair and logical, and very general too. Extremely well put – I subscribe 110% to it!

It’s utter bullshit from the very start. First, it isn’t true that the Ricci curvature can be written as they do in eqn (1). Second, in eqn (2) the Einstein tensor (middle term) cannot be replaced by the Ricci tensor (right-hand term), unless the Ricci scalar ® is zero, which only happens when there’s no energy. They nonchalantly do that replacement without even a hint of explanation.

Elsevier and ScienceDirect should feel ashamed. They can go f**k themselves.

It seems to me these scenes are introduced in films to sexualize them. Most often than not they don’t add anything to the story. But blood & sex get more viewers. So I find the whole thing hypocritical.

Brings me to mind an episode of the hilarious series “Coupling”, where Jeff says that the actress in the film “The Piano” (?) was naked in the whole film. His friends say she wasn’t, it was only a scene in the film. And Jeff replies “it depends on how you watch it” 🤣

Fantastic, this is extremely helpful, thank you! 🥇 I wanted to test a couple of distros for my Thinkpad, and I’ll make sure to check and save this kind of information from live USBs.

Thank you, that’s useful info, I didn’t know about this. Could you be so kind to share some link, or say something more, about lspci and lsmod and how to proceed from them to identifying which drivers one should install? Cheers!

Really embarrassing also for the journals that published the papers – and which are as guilty. They take ridiculously massive amounts of money to publish articles (publication cost for one article easily surpasses the cost of a high-end business laptop), and they don’t even check them properly?

As most who have already commented here, I’m somewhat unimpressed (and would expect more analytical subtlety from a scientist). Wittgenstein already fully dissected the notion of “free will”, showing its semantic variety of meanings and how at some depth it becomes vague and unclear. And Nietzsche discussed why “punishment” is necessary and makes sense even in a completely deterministic world… Sad that such insights are forgotten by many scientists. Often unclear if some scientists want to deepen our understanding of things, or just want sensationalism. Maybe a bit of both…

The summary I just read sounds great, thanks for the tip!

Thank you for the explanation! – it puts that sentence into perspective. I think he put it in a somewhat unfortunate and easily misunderstood way.