One of my colleagues study was shut down because the medication “engendered a strong response”.

Calling this administration an idiocracy is insanely generous

“Your body doesn’t work perfectly? Dunno man, mine does.”

Well - parent didn’t say “the thing that makes it less useful _for me_ is lack of a backlight”, but a categorical “it’s less useful for everyone due to lack of a backlight”.

Sure, information on all sorts of things is in “the library”. But (a) most people in the world don’t have access to a decent library (if you’re on HN you’re statistically much more likely to), (b) most people have no idea how to use one (same), and most importantly (c) AI will distill the knowledge from ten books you might need to read into step by step simple instructions if you ask.

I asked it to clip a video onto segments based on location of spoken words (using separately done audio transcription) and it flagged that as cyber.

It was always the case that a mean person could throw a rock at you and you'd die. Therefore, nuclear weapons are nothing to be worried about.

It's 2 different statements. The first is true, even if you don't like it. The "therefore" is something you completely made up to make your point and imply something I neither said nor suggested.

You might not like it either but an arm race isn't new. The tools changed but competition, and thus threats, remain.

I agree with you, but argue with the form of the person we both replied to. Alhough I would prefer universal peace and international morality, I maintain a generally neutral position on nuclear arms. I am also neutral on the evergreen innocent idiocies of youthfulness.

This is a form of argument known as reductio ad absurdum. I see it more and more frequently now, often in dismissal of a fairly throughtful point of view, usually with a mocking and disdainful tone, and therefore nuclear weapons are nothing to worry about.

I'm not sure if reductio ad absurdum was about my point or theirs but just to be explicit, I didn't say it wasn't a problem or a big deal, only that that threats and competitions are not new. I clearly didn't make a moral or ethical statement about nuclear weapons.

Their's.

Same. I'm working on a set of python and matlab scripts that deals with segmenting MRI images into brain vs skull, and it thinks that's bioterrorism.

That's literally the first thing in the article.

You got me. Usually I read them.

edit: Huh. Actually not a bad read. It even mentions ' On Growth and Form' which is interesting, if outdated. There are more modern texts like 'Shapes', 'Flow', and 'Branches' by Philip J Ball.

> I'm pretty confident it's Gemini behind the curtain for Siri.

I mean, they said it was.

sorry, i only watched a subset of the presentation

So I just tried this with a bunch of medium-complex documents and it's wildly wrong. I suspect the authors have never seen an actually complicated Word document?

Do you have any actual examples of documents where it did not work?

My examples are all internal/confidential, but if someone from the project wants an example I could probably do some search/replace redaction. It would be a lot of work though because there's photographs and such too, and indexes, and tables, and documents inserted by reference, cross references, conditional fields, bibliography fields, formula fields, etc etc.

vibe coded, it seems from the commit history (and readme lol)

My guess is the author uses a terrible and abusive registrar and isn’t aware that not all registrars are terrible and abusive.

My guess is the author is a "domainer" (i.e. someone who manages a large portfolio of domains for resale) and doesn't realize that their needs are atypical.