.. the person that doesn't get vaccinated infects someone you love who can't get vaccinated for medical reasons.
Those who can't get vaccinated for medical reasons are depending on the rest of us to create "herd immunity" to protect them, because short of living a life in isolation, that's the only protection they have.
... but it won't: The True Believers will believe it is true, and for everyone else, the current administration's credibility on health-related matters died months ago.
The "AI photos" with too many body parts a few years back gave "AI" a bad name.
From the hallucinations and confident-but-wrong output of 2025's text-AI-chatbots, this bad reputation is still deserved.
For most people, It will take a few years of trust-able output from AI before people accept it as mature enough to use without sanity-checking its output.*
* When the day comes that people mostly "blindly trust" AI output we may all be in trouble. That day is probably within the next 5-10 years, maybe sooner.
>Will japan sue for the all the ddos they get hit with?
Cloudflare doesn't have a monopoly on protecting against DDOS attacks.
Sorry, I took a shortcut with the definition.
The longer version is something most people can make at home with things most people already have in their kitchen.
This assumes sugar, butter, milk, fresh fruit, fresh vegetables, dried pasta, spices, cut or ground meat, etc. aren't processed enough to "count" as ultra-processed foods.
>A $1,000 ticket better come with
I'd settle for the ticket coming with a signed album of their latest gold record, but only if the record was made of real gold and the gold content was worth at least $1000.
One very loose definition is that if it's something most people can make at home, it's probably not ultra-processed. If they can't, it probably is.
Not the hard-and-fast definition that most Slashdot readers are looking for, I'm afraid.
The Texas outbreak started before the change in administration.
That said, the decision to immunize or not immunize may have been made during the first administration of said idiots.
Personally, I blame this epidemic on over-amplification of a long-since-discredited paper in a major medical journal in the late 1990s.
As for the over-amplification: The idiots in charge aren't helping.
Lincoln was a Free Soiler. He may have had a moral aversion to slavery, but it was secondary to his economic concerns. He believed that slavery could continue in the South but should not be extended into the western territories, primarily because it limited economic opportunities for white laborers, who would otherwise have to compete with enslaved workers.
From an economic perspective, he was right. The Southern slave system enriched a small aristocratic elite—roughly 5% of whites—while offering poor whites very limited upward mobility.
The politics of the era were far more complicated than the simplified narrative of a uniformly radical abolitionist North confronting a uniformly pro-secession South. This oversimplification is largely an artifact of neo-Confederate historical revisionism. In reality, the North was deeply racist by modern standards, support for Southern secession was far from universal, and many secession conventions were marked by severe democratic irregularities, including voter intimidation.
The current coalescence of anti-science attitudes and neo-Confederate interpretations of the Civil War is not accidental. Both reflect a willingness to supplant scholarship with narratives that are more “correct” ideologically. This tendency is universal—everyone does it to some degree—but in these cases, it is profoundly anti-intellectual: inconvenient evidence is simply ignored or dismissed. As in the antebellum South, this lack of critical thought is being exploited to entrench an economic elite. It keeps people focused on fears over vaccinations or immigrant labor while policies serving elite interests are quietly enacted.
Not exactly the same thing, and I'll warn you that if you're squeamish, don't keep reading:
In preclinical pharmaceutical animal testing, there is a chemical fixation/preservation technique known as perfusion. There are a couple of ways of doing it. Common way: a mouse is put under a deep, deep, plane of anesthesia and held there. The chest is opened. A catheter of aldehyde fixative is introduced into one of the aorta's and the one of the major ventricles cut. The heart, still pumping away, pumps the fixative around the entire body before it,too, becomes chemically fixed. The animal is held under the plane of anesthesia the entire time and does not suffer. With the heart stopped beforehand there are ways to do this artificially (syringe pumps, gravity perfusion), but they vary in effectiveness.
Point being: you could do this with a human and some kind of biocompatable antifreeze (glycerine?) if you had the time to plan, the money, and....eh, the will?
Also known as the future IWNEEHATTWPFSAWGATPWWID Superfund Radioactive Contamination Site.
It's different from humans in that human opinions, expertise and intelligence are rooted in their experience. Good or bad, and inconsistent as it is, it is far, far more stable than AI. If you've ever tried to work at a long running task with generative AI, the crash in performance as the context rots is very, very noticeable, and it's intrinsic to the technology. Work with a human long enough, and you will see the faults in his reasoning, sure, but it's just as good or bad as it was at the beginning.
Correct. This is why I don't like the term "hallucinate". AIs don't experience hallucinations, because they don't experience anything. The problem they have would more correctly be called, in psychology terms "confabulation" -- they patch up holes in their knowledge by making up plausible sounding facts.
I have experimented with AI assistance for certain tasks, and find that generative AI absolutely passes the Turing test for short sessions -- if anything it's too good; too fast; too well-informed. But the longer the session goes, the more the illusion of intelligence evaporates.
This is because under the hood, what AI is doing is a bunch of linear algebra. The "model" is a set of matrices, and the "context" is a set of vectors representing your session up to the current point, augmented during each prompt response by results from Internet searches. The problem is, the "context" takes up lots of expensive high performance video RAM, and every user only gets so much of that. When you run out of space for your context, the older stuff drops out of the context. This is why credibility drops the longer a session runs. You start with a nice empty context, and you bring in some internet search results and run them through the model and it all makes sense. When you start throwing out parts of the context, the context turns into inconsistent mush.
It's never been about protecting kids, it's about being able to eliminate online anonymity.
Slashdot itself has had a bevy of articles over the years (such as
this) about the harms of social media to developing adolescents.
Is Slashdot part of the propaganda campaign to wipe out digital anonymity?
The data on harms is at least a big chunk of the motivation. Maybe the response to it is a moral panic or maybe the response is proportionate to the evidence. But I think it's going to win out in terms of policy.
If you don't like the proposed solution, I think you better start promoting a better way to implement this kind of intervention that still preserves the protections you care about.
Or people are going to go with the not-better way.
As the trials of life continue to take their toll, remember that there is always a future in Computer Maintenance. -- National Lampoon, "Deteriorata"
