But the dot-com bubble did produce at least one thing of lasting value, this utterly brilliant TV commercial: "We want you to remember our name, Outpost.com. That's why we've decided to use this cannon to shoot gerbils through the O of Outpost ... splat! ... splat! ... so close!"

It's a clown car. They're all clown cars.

Not so far-fetched, considering that Homer once ate himself (Treehouse of Horror XXVIII. Review: "The third act left a sour taste in my mouth." (Note: This is fiction. Kids, don't try this yourselves.)

Oops. There's an inappropriate quote tag in there. My bad.

Based on the description, I assume it's not only about equally effective on all humans but also on many other species. Good reminder, though. Glad to see you ultra-liberals are still trying to keep everyone honest.

Very sorry to hear that, it's a tough situation. I assume you've already heard about various treatment options, including clinical trials of gene therapy. I hope you get an effective treatment.

I can't tell whether that's a joke, but the Google Pixel 3 smart watch has "recently" (June, 2025) received FDA clearance for "loss of pulse" feature. Seems like there would be a lot of false positives if the watch is either too tight or not tight enough, but maybe not.

Technically, loss of pulse would indicate asystole or cardiac arrest, which would be the last stage of a heart attack. Anyone who suspects a heart attack should get medical attention as soon as possible to maximize chance of survival.

Out-of-hospital cardiac arrest has a poor prognosis, but it's possible survival could be improved by a wearable (or implanted device, ICD, like the CORA in Fountains of Paradise). Wearables can also detect other health conditions, like atrial fibrillation. Are wearables ready for real-world use?

I am not a lawyer, but I think the key is "would qualify as a crime if perpetrated by a person." A criminal act requires an intent to commit a act which is criminal (it doesn't require knowing that the act is criminal, just that the act is done intentionally). The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (Title 18, US Code section 1030) describes several illegal acts, but they all say "knowingly" or "intentionally".

There might be other applicable laws; and, at this point, given the number of times this has happened, it seems companies could be considered negligent in giving their models any way to access the Internet. If their testing caused any financial loss to the targets, they could be sued.

"Claude could have obtained internet access during evaluation." So has Claude now developed the ability to plug in cables? We really are in trouble. At least it can't operate door knobs yet ....

The Web page for Lox mentions Scheme. One of the List-like descendants of Scheme is Racket, which has some features intended to facilitate making new languages. Racket also replaces data types with a "contract" system. For anyone who might be interested.

Well, if you're far enough to the right, everyone else will be on your left, and vice-versa. That's just how it works.

I think some of my political opinions would probably be considered leftist, some not. I'm definitely opposed to war, mass murder, and genocide, no matter who does it. I thought that was interesting background about Ackman.

I'll try to address the concerns. First, I certify and attest that the results were not due to giving a prompt to some LLM AI. They're the result of my own Web searches, followed by reading the articles found and posting the parts that seemed relevant.

What I hear is that one problem is that my post contained too many words. Understood. I was concerned about that.

I seem to remember thinking about it, but obviously I can't demonstrate that. "Unsourced text" is an odd criticism, since there are three links to sources. There's also a fourth reference to "LinkedIn", implying it's questionable.

As to AI and "unsourced": When I use Google to search the Web, it oftens returns "AI" results. Those results include links to sources. I consider some of those sources questionable (such as Facebook or Reddit) and discard those. So "unsourced" is wrong, in this case.

Some of my comments were questions which I didn't think required any sources, since they were my own thoughts. "Lifestyle choices", for example, are often mentioned in conjunction with deaths. In this case, if the girl had an aneurysm, it could have burst as a result of a sudden rise in blood pressure, which could have resulted some use of some stimulant drug. The change in blood pressure might have been captured by the Oura ring, but there wouldn't be any way to tell whether the change occurred before or after the stroke.

Well, yes. If someone claims I made a false statement, I expect that person at least to identify the false statement and, generally, explain why it's false. Anything and everything "could be" bullshit. Anything could "look like AI slop". Those opinions don't seem helpful to others, but they may inform my style in future.

Are you responding to my post? Do you have any specific criticisms? Have you found any inaccuracies? If you would share, maybe others could benefit from your insights.

What illness are you talking about? Keep in mind that not everyone is you, and we can't read your mind.