Agreed more interested in something with arms and maybe legs.. even chopsticks and stilts would be okay tbh. Reachy has no arms, its antennae look like they'll poke someone's eye out when they suddenly twitch, and listening/staring at your keyboard is probably not good from a security perspective.. that said, kudos to launching something. Maybe some limbs will be sold on a later reachy? I'm guessing it is for kids and maybe good for elderly like emotional support robot (it's a thing) that can call for help.

tldr; google Ai overview queried
how delicious is ostrich or emu compared to the tinamou?
(moa is supposed to be related to tinamou.)
tldr answer: should be like a delicate quail or pheasant!
but you could just run a tinamou farm, though not as cool!

Ostrich:
Taste: Ostrich meat is often described as having a taste similar to beef or veal, with some describing a subtle butter or toasted walnut flavor.
Texture: It's known for being tender and juicy, especially when prepared correctly.
Comparisons: Many find it a good substitute for beef in various dishes.
Emu:
Taste: Emu meat is often described as having a more pronounced, slightly gamier taste compared to ostrich, which some find appealing.
Texture: It can be slightly less tender than ostrich, but still suitable for various cooking methods.
Comparisons: Some find it similar to bison or venison.
Tinamou:
Taste: Tinamou has a more delicate, refined flavor, often compared to pheasant or grouse.
Texture: It's generally described as tender and fine-textured.
Comparisons: Its subtle flavor profile differs significantly from the richer, beef-like flavors of ostrich and emu.
In essence: If you're looking for a red meat with a flavor profile similar to beef, ostrich is often preferred. Emu offers a similar experience but with a potentially stronger, gamier flavor. Tinamou, on the other hand, provides a more delicate and subtle flavor profile, distinct from both ostrich and emu.

...They had to show they delivered something new using Apple Intelligence.
Can't tell if it is actually using the onboard neural engine or is it going through them.

Agree with all your points.

It's possible I might have missed these, but they're also major considerations with COVID:

1. It causes scarring of tissue, especially heart tissue. That's why COVID sufferers often had severe blood clots in their bloodstream. Scarring of the heart increases risk of heart attacks, but there's obviously not much data on by how much, from COVID. Yet.

2. It causes brain damage in all who have been infected. Again, we have very little idea of how much, but from what I've read, there may be an increased risk of strokes in later life.

3. Viral load is known to cause fossil viruses in DNA to reactivate silenced portions. This can lead to cancer. Viral load has also been linked to multiple sclerosis and chronic fatigue, but it's possible COVID was the wrong sort of virus. These things can take decades to develop.

I would expect a drop in life expectancy, sometimes in the 2040-2050 timeframe, from life-shortening damage from COVID, but the probability depends on how much damage even mild sufferers sustained and what medicine can do to mitigate it by then. The first, as far as I know, has not been looked at nearly as much as long COVID has - which is fair. The second is obviously unknowable.

I'm hoping I'm being overly anxious, my worry is that I might not be anxious enough.

I wondered if Xerox would get the keyboards but apparently Unicomp bought buckling spring from Lexmark in 1996 and now sells New Model M with buckling spring tech. Also a Mac version.. hmm wonder how it compares to keychron / MX keys?
https://www.igorslab.de/en/uni...
https://www.pckeyboard.com/pag...

Made it to the BBC too. tldr, sounds great but:
1. They apparently used puzzle cases that would be hard for humans. Is AI more on a par with humans for non-puzzle cases?
2. How sure are we that the quoted models have not already been trained on those puzzle cases, or other cases perhaps in medical school exams that were created based on knowledge of them? It sounds pretty suspicious for such a disparity.
3. If doctor sees two potential solutions with similar probability (maybe 60% vs 70%) they might pick either one, but a computer likely would pick the more probable one. What was the reason humans were bad at it. Was it just tons of data they could not crunch and so they got fooled by the most obvious points which (being a puzzle problem) tricked them as planned?
4. So how do doctors usually handle difficult cases IRL? IANAD but my guess is something like: Local doctors don't know and (possibly after lots of consultations and time lost with wrong treatments) send the patient to a top tier medical research facility where the world's top experts are. More tests are implemented to narrow down possible diagnoses. Then I am guessing treatments are executed and as they fail other treatments are given. Maybe a researcher picks them up for a new study, etc. An LLM doesn't actually care about healing the sick, it is just a math problem. Humans I am guessing are going to try to heal them by trying different things and I am guessing this is actually how it works. It isn't clear the AI will actually deliver the best results in the end, with the exception that it saves a lot of wasted time and costs (unless it ends up costing a lot to use an AI, because medical industry and liability).

My latest vaccine shots had the 6G upgrade, to take advantage of the higher-speed web access when the networks upgrade, but if they're selling those frequencies to high-power carriers, then I won't be able to walk into any area that handles AT&T or Verizon. :P

Seriously, this will totally wreck the 6G/WiFi6 specification, utterly ruin the planned 7G/WiFi7 update, and cause no end of problems to those already using WiFi6 equipment - basically, people with working gear may well find their hardware simply no longer operates, which is really NOT what no vendor or customer wants to hear. Vendors with existing gear will need to do a recall, which won't be popular, and the replacement products simply aren't going to do even a fraction as well as the customers were promised - which, again, won't go down well. And it won't be the politicians who get the blame, despite it being the politicians who are at fault.

Long time resident, have recently asked Claude to check my translations and flag any bad problems. It is really good at catching typos I missed even when reviewing when I'm tired and has recommended grammar or stylistic changes that make it sound better. But this is just writing technical docs, not prose! It is good at telling me what is more common usage (which is great since obviously it knows common usage really well) and can tell me why. Actually it is really good as a living dictionary and never gets tired ;) But.. never trust Claude to translate a spreadsheet without skipping rows. I made a pretty tool with it but only after realizing how cavalier it could be, saying it had checked things it didn't, etc.

You could ask it for something a lot simpler. Before reading this thread I happened to ask Claude to add a bit where a map of userid to record counts was outputted sorted by count in descending order. I was just kind of tired and ordinary Comparison didn't work in the dev console. Guess what Claude did? It made an array of counts, sorted THAT, then USED THAT AS A KEY to get the user ids. After I asked what on earth caused you to do such a silly thing it gave me a bubble sort. Okay fine, I don't actually depend on Claude for anything important but that was just beyond brain dead into WTF territory. Actual chat below:

This approach:

Creates a reverse mapping from count to list of user IDs
Sorts the counts in ascending order
Reverses the list to get descending order
Prints results grouped by count (highest to lowest)

Retry

Um.. I think you are doing something very dumb here. You have a list of counts and sorting it. And then you use the count as a key to get the user name. But there will be many users with the same number of records! Count is not unique so it cannot be used as a key! Where on earth did you think up such a silly thing.

You're absolutely right - that was a terrible approach! I was overthinking this completely. Here's the simple, correct solution:

On exactly what the detector is capable of detecting. If they're looking, at any point, for radio waves, then I'd start there. Do the radio waves correspond to the absorption (and therefore emission) band for any molecule or chemical bond that is likely to arise in the ice?

This is so basic that I'm thinking that if this was remotely plausible, they'd have already thought of it. This is too junior to miss. Ergo, the detector isn't looking for radio waves (which seems the most likely, given it's a particle detector, not a radio telescope), or nothing obvious exists at that frequency (which is only a meaningful answer if, indeed, it is a radio telescope).

So, the question is, what precisely does the detector actually detect?

There was a survivor from the plane who described a loud bang before the plane crashed.

This places an absolute upper size on the alien battlefleet seeking to use Earth as a food source.

Trump's abandoned The Wall, as he found that the album doesn't mention Mexico even once, although he found the marching hammers very inspiring.

Back in the days of the Rainbow series, the Orange Book required that data that was marked as secure could not be transferred to any location or user who was (a) not authorised to access it or (b) did not have the security permissions regardless of any other authorisation. There was an additional protocol, though, listed in those manuals - I don't know if it was ever applied though - which stated that data could not be transferred to any device or any network that did not enforce the same security rules or was not authorised to access that data.

Regardless, in more modern times, these protocols were all abolished.

Had they not been, and had all protocols been put in place and enforced, then you could install all the unsecured connections and unsecured servers you liked, without limit. It wouldn't have made the slightest difference to actual security, because the full set of protocols would have required the system as a whole to not place sensitive data on such systems.

After the Clinton email server scandal, the Manning leaks, and the Snowden leaks, I'm astonished this wasn't done. I am dubious the Clinton scandal was actually anything like as bad as the claimants said, but it doesn't really matter. If these protocols were all in place, then it would be absolutely impossible for secure data to be transferred to unsecured devices, and absolutely impossible for secure data to be copied to machines that had no "need to know", regardless of any passwords obtained and any clearance obtained.

If people are using unsecured phones, unsecured protocols, unsecured satellite links, etc, it is not because we don't know how to enforce good policy, the documents on how to do this are old and could do with being updated but do in fact exist, as does the software that is capable of enforcing those rules. It is because a choice has been made, by some idiot or other, to consider the risks and consequences perfectly reasonable costs of doing business with companies like Microsoft, because companies like Microsoft simply aren't capable of producing systems that can achieve that kind of level of security and everyone knows it.

In and of itself, that's actually the worrying part.

In the 1930s, and even the first few years of the 1940s, a lot of normal (and relatively sane) people agreed completely with what the fascists were doing. In the Rhythm 0 "endurance art" by Marina Abramovi, normal (and relatively sane) people openly abused their right to do whatever they liked to her, at least up to the point where one tried to kill her with a gun that had been supplied as part of the installation, at which point the people realised they may have gone a little OTT.

Normal (and relatively sane) people will agree with, and support, all kinds of things most societies would regard as utterly evil, so long as (relative to some aspirational ideal) the evil is incremental, with each step in itself banal.

There are various (now-disputed) psychology experiments that attempted to study this phenomenon, but regardless of the credibility of those experiments, there's never really been much of an effort by any society to actually stop, think, and consider the possibility that maybe they're a little too willing to agree to stuff that maybe they shouldn't. People are very keen to assume that it's only other people who can fall into that trap.

Normal and sane is, sadly as Rhythm 0 showed extremely well, not as impressive as we'd all like to think it is. The veneer of civilisation is beautiful to behold, but runs awfully thin and chips easily. Normal and sane adults are not as distant from chimpanzees as our five million years of divergence would encourage us to think. Which is rather worrying, when you get right down to it.