I prefer to think it's Leonard Cohen's doing.

Drive-by-wire? From the description, it almost sounds like all they need is a trailer to be pulled behind the primary vehicle. Maybe with a fancy hitching mechanism to give it more separation, but still, self-driving seems like overkill for this application.

Actually, I retract my earlier statement. I had read something about Tinker earlier today on another site, but crossreferencing, it appears to have been wrong.

Then you'll be happy to find out that 99.9999% of the Internet was unaffected.

This product is a 'me too' since there's already tools to help you fine tune various Big Player models.

That's not what this is. This is a tool for creating foundation models.

Would you prefer the word "proprietary"? Because AFAIK that's all he means by that.

My sympathies for your lose.

[Eye twitch] [Eye twitch]

"Jane Goodall, Famed Primatologist "

Also, famed primate.

The evidence is more the other way around: this is evidence that life could get established there, not evidence that life made these things.

Past studies:

* Volatile, low-mass (100 u) nitrogen- and oxygen-bearing organic species.

* Single-ringed aromatic compounds.

* Complex, high-mass (exceeding 20 u) macromolecular fragments of insoluble organic material, featuring multiple aryl groups connected to hydrocarbon chains, along with nitrogen- and oxygen-bearing groups.

* Aryl (aromatic) and oxygen-bearing compounds in older E-ring grains.

Current study:

* Confirmed aryl and O-bearing compounds in fresh grains (ruling out that they formed due to space weathering)

* Aliphatic O-bearing compounds with carbonyl groups attached to a C2 organic, with acetaldehyde or acetic acid being likely candidates (aldehydes are interesting because they're intermediates precursors in the formation of amino acids)

* Aliphatic and cyclic esters and/or alkenes (on Earth, these are involved in the formation of fats and oils)

* Two classes of ether and/or ethyl compounds (on Earth, these are regularly found in living organisms)

* Tentative N- and O-bearing moieties. Potential candidates for these molecules include derivatives of pyrimidine, pyridine, and nitriles like acetonitrile (such molecules are involved in the reactions that form amino acids).

TL/DR: there may well be not just the atomic building blocks of life in there (CHONPS), but the molecular building blocks as well.

I would say that I've never seen another modern nation shoot itself in the foot so badly, but...

well...

yeah, anyway...

Well, note that it says 'big' and 'compared to other technological breakthroughs'.

So even if they see small, or corresponding with hiring, or even big but they think it can be correlated with macroeconomic conditions that would have prevailed even without AI, they can kind of wave it away.

About the only thing they can say is that it hasn't been so extreme as to completely eliminate whole categories of the workforce. The data is too noisy in general, and as companies claim to layoff thanks to AI, it's hard to know when they actually mean it or if that's a rationale to mitigate worries that investors might have. Investors love layoffs generally, but there's always a bit of a worry as to what the layoffs might mean in terms of the future, and AI is a nice bandaid to make investors think 'all upside'

My refrigerator has a CRISPR drawer. I'm still trying to figure out what to do with all of these glow-in-the-dark carrots.

EVERY point you mentioned has a genetic component.

Menopause has a genetic component? Exactly how much are you planning to reengineer the human race?

The few times its not (environmental causes I suppose) is incredibly rare.

... says PDXNerd, responding to a post where the vast majority of cases listed are predominantly environmental.

If you want to be pedantic, you can probably "find" genetic susceptibilities to literally anything, even dying of a car accident. But you're not going to blame a person dying in a car accident on their genes. It's not even close to the proximate cause.

You literally said "genetic component" or "genetic factor" on every point

I "literally" did not.

PLEASE we do NOT need more old people having babies

Why? No, seriously, why? Because anyone over 50 grosses you out? If you're so obsessed with genes, you should be thrilled with the concept of older people having babies - the older the better! It means they've survived later into life. You should want 90-year-old grannies having as many children as they can.

The low birth rate in western countries

I can't tell if you want to fix it or not.

there's plenty of children that need fostering and adopting.

You could not possibly be more ignorant on the topic. This isn't the 1850s, with orphanages full of orphans just down the street, waiting for someone to show up and sign some papers. There's too much competition for too few children, and it's a bureaucratic nightmare. The average adoption costs $20-50k and international adoptions (most adoptions these days) take on average 2-4 years, but complications can drag them out to far longer - and all the while, the child is growing up without you. It's a massive emotional burden on any prospective parent. Actually talk to any adoptive family before spouting such nonsense.

Fun fact: the genus name for meadowsweet / mead wort (a plant of waterlogged soils that grows a lot near me), used to be "Spirea". It's a traditional flavoring herb and strewing herb, but also common in herbal medicine. Its traditional medicinal uses were confirmed in the late 1830s when salicylic acid was extracted from it. So in the late 1800s when Bayer started making "acetyl spirea" extract, they named it "aspirin".