Caution: This comment contains mildly infuriating party tricks.
Curious. This reminds me of the "Your tongue knows what things you look at will feel like" meme that did the rounds a while back. (If you missed it, it was literally that phrase, possibly with some kind of image.)
Reading the article, it also reminds me of the body confusion trick of moving the right foot around in a clockwise motion while trying to write the letter O a few times (which most people write anticlockwise). Most people will inadvertently reverse the rotation of their foot.
(Make necessary changes if you're left handed and/or write your O's clockwise.)
Or the two hands equivalent: Pointing away from yourself, move the tips of the index fingers around in a clockwise or anticlockwise motion, keeping the fingers parallel. Then, continuing the rotation, turn the hands inwards so that they point towards each other. If they're now both going over and away or over and towards, one of them has changed direction.
I mean, from my understanding of Japanese, this makes sense. There's certain humor and puns that exist due to the usage of Kanji and its meaning (that typically get lost in translation).
Makes sense. I live in Colombia and sometimes I have to look up a word in a dictionary or online translator if I don’t know the word in Spanish. Problem is Spanish is not one language. Some words mean very different things depending on which country you’re in and most dictionaries only give you the meaning from Spain. This can be a bit of a problem when you run into issues like the word “coger”. Here in Colombia it means “to grab or hold”. Most of the rest of the Spanish speaking world it means “to fuck”.
So yeah, we’re better off with multiple LLMs since bias sucks.
Note that in Spain "coger" also means "to grab or hold" just like in Colombia. So most dictionaries are likely to use that.
But you are completely right.
I mean, "una polla" in Spain would be "a penis"... but everywhere else it means either "a female chicken" or, in some places, "a girlfriend". In others it means "a bet", and I think in Mexico it's the name of an egg-based drink.
Representative Brad Wenstrup (R–OH), who chairs the House of Representatives’s Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic, says his panel and the House’s Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence have heard testimony from a whistleblower “who presents as a highly credible senior-level CIA officer.” According to the press release
"presents as"
Jesus Fucking Christ they didn't even verify their single source's background before publishing a press release.
A highly dubious source, the “anonymous whistleblower” speaking through the Republican Party, but I’m still uncertain what benefit is derived from investigating this? What does it matter whether it was a lab leak or zoonotic transmission at this point?
What does it matter whether it was a lab leak or zoonotic transmission at this point?
Well, possibly quite important if you want to assess the risk posed by wet markets. And if it was a lab leak (personally, I think less likely) you'd want to know where processes failed, and possibly some heads to roll.
It would show that the current safety protocols are inadequate and unless they are improved any future and ongoing research on gain of function or anything close to bioweapons is putting mankind at risk. It’s important to keep a historical perspective and remember how many doctors died treating ebola even though they used ppe.
An explanation of how this works from the article:
JWST is able to analyse the light that passes through the faraway planet's atmosphere. That light contains the chemical signature of molecules in its atmosphere. The details can be deciphered by splitting the light into its constituent frequencies - rather like a prism creating a rainbow spectrum. If parts of the resulting spectrum are missing, it has been absorbed by chemicals in the planet's atmosphere, enabling researchers to discover its composition.
Note that they say the identification is ‘tentative’ and not robust yet.
My comments was really made in jest…love the follow-up from everyone though! I also lov ehow science will always defer to “possible” instead of “definitively” no matter how much evidence there may be.
That's because that's how science works. Discoveries are not considered to be statistically significant until they reach what's called 5 sigma certainty which is approximately equivalent to saying that the chance that the discovery is wrong is 1 in 3.5 million.
A lot of scientists would consider it unethical to claim a discover until you had provided enough data to reach 5 sigma certainty. When papers are published, it takes a lot of peer review before the hypothesis of that paper event approaches 5 sigma certainty, but that doesn't mean that reporters aren't happy to pick up the story.
It's just bad and/or unethical science journalism that are picking up on unproven papers because of the sensational title.
This is in the same vein as that idiot that started the anti-vaxxer movement by writing a bogus study about vaccines causing autism. Tbf, his bullshit should've been uncovered while reviewing the study...
I think this is worse, arguably. Don't get me wrong, Wakefield wasn't good. But this is actually worse.
Wakefield wanted to call into question a thing which, at the time, was a relatively small thing: the MMR vaccine. There was no political platform of vaccines back then, it was the fallout from his con years after that created that platform. He wanted to do that so he could sell his own snake oil cure-all for autism. He frankly didn't care about vaccines, he simply knew people were hesitant about shots and overly concerned about normalcy.
So Wakefield really was just a greedy sonuvabitch ready to capitalize on the tremendous effort parents of autistic children are ready to commit for their kids. Bad, but just selfish greed. Not trying to accelerate an already existential crisis for political maga points.
This though, climate change, is already the political platform. This is very clearly an attack on the very institutions of academia themselves. This is trying to discredit the act of collecting data and replicating experiments as real science. And there's frankly a lot to say about that topic today (p<0.05 apocalypse) but this isn't saying any of that. It's simply saying "here's a reason not to trust climate science at all". That's the argument. That's way more dangerous than anti-vax arguments. Thank God this instance was as ineffective as it was.
Silver lining, it took almost ten years for Wakefield to get caught and detracted. This didn't take long to catch at all because the guy who did it was smug about his shitty goal, in typical right winger fashion: he went and published an opinion piece on his own paper, to the surprise of even his co-author.
science
Hot
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.