They are using neural networks with transformers. The same approach used for GPT-3 (software that writes unique realistic text in response to a prompt); and for language translation; among other tasks.

It works predominantly off of the natural language of the problem.

No it isn't at all trivial. The level you are talking about is what was doable 20ish years ago, and would score about the 4th percentile in these competitions.

Most meat dishes you want umami enhancing ingredients, plus sweet, acid, and salty.

Tomato, garlic, raisin, celery, and onion enhance umami
corn syrup, raisin, and orange provide sweet
vinegar provides acidity
salt provides salty
other ingredients are for texture, color, and preservation purposes.

Recipe?

Players aren't using the AI/solver software during the game (at least the majority aren't). They are using it to learn and understand patterns of play - the type of hands that work best as a check-raise for a particular type of flop; types of hands that work well for bluffing three streets; etc.

Bots that could beat all but the worlds top professionals have been playing online since before 2011. Bots capable of beating most top pros were available in 2018.

Pokibot was developed in 2002, and it could beat most non professionals.

No there aren't. The two studies that showed benefit, the first was withdrawn due 'irregularities', the second was likely false negatives (and reduced false positives) due to the protocol used. The treatment group was ivermectin and seaweed extract in a nasal saline solution multiple times a day. Saline solution triggers nasal mucus and rinses out the nasal cavity. So after that protocol, a nasal swab to detect COVID-19 wouldn't detect anything because those infected - the concentration of virus wouldn't have accumulated again yet; and the high level of false positives from high levels of amplification would be eliminated also (a few particles of dead virus are present in nasal passages of most hospital workers).

The article you link, the author doesn't even understand what a meta-analysis is and why the site he is using didn't qualify as a meta-analysis. (Only quite similar studies can be clustered in a meta-analysis - drastically different protocols of dose, frequency, cotreatment, etc. can't be grouped).

Also he apparently doesn't understand that papers with positive results that don't reach significance are fairly meaningless. False positives showing benefit are quite common in extremely small studies for medicines where there is enormous variability in outcomes among normal standard of care treated patients.

They can actually prevent virus infecting a cell as well. Immunoglobulins are secreted onto mucosal surfaces and can bind virus particles and prevent them from interacting with the ACE2 receptor.

What is the rate per 100,000 vehicles by make? If Honda Civic is the most purchased make by a huge margin, then it doesn't tell us much. Converting to a rate per 100,000 per each make would allow comparison and tell us the vehicle that thieves actually target.

There are 8 million metric tons dumped into the ocean each year.

https://oceanconservancy.org/t...

Since research has shown that extremely low doses (AKA microdosing) have different effects that dosing for recreational purposes.

For instance this recent research,

https://www.sciencedirect.com/...

Most drugs can have significantly different effects depending on the dosing.

Where did you get that BS number? Vaccines are nowhere near that effective in preventing either hospitalizations or death. At peak effectiveness (up to 2 months after a second dose of Pfizer) they are about 20x-30x effective in reducing hospitalizaitons and deaths. At 7 months post vaccination they are about 3x-7x effective.

Vaccination can be overwhelmed by a high dose exposure (ie up to 1500x increased exposure due to being around people singing or yelling indoors; or 50,000x- 100,000x exposure from a single super spreader).

If you get a strong enough dose that you become symptomatic, your risk of hospitalization and dying are similar to those who are unvaccinated who become symptomatic.

There are two aspects to vaccination, personal protection and herd immunity.

Once you achieve herd immunity and have a low number of people in the population with the disease you can essentially go 'back to normal' since the disease will have a R 1 and you will be at low risk of exposure.

Before you achieve an R 1 and still have high numbers of people with the virus you are depending on the personal protection aspects of vaccines. In this case vaccines are like seatbelts - at low risk situations provide almost perfect protection; but high risk situations there is still a substantial possibility of death.

Basically if you are vaccinated and exposed to low levels of virus, your body can respond strongly and quickly enough to overwhelm the virus easily.

If you are exposed to a high concentration of viral particles (loud talking or singing indoors; a super spreader) the number of virus particles can infect and replicate fast enough that it can still overwhelm your immune system and kill you.

As of five years ago, there were 91 of 493 of the synthetic genome that we "didn't know the function of"

https://elifesciences.org/arti...

However, that 93 is misleading since most of those were 'generic' genes - ones of similar structure and function known genes.

https://www.nature.com/article...

Also - with 5 years time almost certainly all or nearly all of those genes have been examined for their function - authors just don't bother to update using databases that describe functions, and instead just quote the original claim in the paper from 5 years ago.

Hate the lack of edit function combined with still being half asleep - admirable (not admiral); strongly correlated (not strongly reported).

Most countries media focus on their own countries behaviour and leadership.

The US leadership was extremely abherent (and abhorrent) in its response to the disease, and thus rightfully the media focused on bad job and horrendous advice coming from the President. If the President offers absurd medical device, actively sabotages important recommendations like mask wearing, undermines his medical advisors, fails to take (or drastically delays) important actions like shutdowns and acquiring PPE etc. That is obviously going to be the focus of the media - even if many other countries might be doing an admiral job.

The study author apparently is trying to mislead the public. If you compare negative reporting with how well the governments actions corresponed with recommended and obvious actions, I'm sure you'll find that it is strongly reported.

For instance I'm sure the UK had strongly negative coverage early in the pandemic, and Brazil likely has had negative coverage throughout.