"Humans have an impulse for action and AIs don't" is your response to an article about an AI grinding its gears, ala "NEW REALIZATION -- I'm burning a lot of time on hCaptcha round-trips
I'd argue if anything, it's humans whose drive for action is weak.
It is if the damage doesn't progress to necrosis.
I never timed its disappearance when it happened to me (I'm not the GP), but I'd day maybe a couple weeks? Not really something I gave much thought to.
Also, it's perfectly possible that the red light from being outdoors in the sun is also good for you - but that also comes with other frequencies, including harmful ionizing UV light, which "ages" the skin and risks skin cancer (though the increased vitamin D from ~290-300nm is an offsetting factor).
Red light therapy is one of those things that sounds like total woo hokum when you first hear about it, but that studies keep showing benefits to.
Key thing to remember is that these studies are using very high doses of red light - often limited by the amount of heating you can safely tolerate in the subject (not heat from the emitter, but from the photons themselves).
Honestly, it doesn't sound crazy at all. Different tissues have different light susceptibilities (that's how, say, laser hair removal works), due to the susceptibility of specific compounds. Red penetrates very deeply (remember the classic trick of shining a flashlight through your hand; only the red makes it through). Red light has a number of very specific interactions it causes. The main one is that it photolyzes the bond between NO and cytochrome c oxidase (triggering NO signaling, causing vasodilation). A secondary possible affect is that it affects light-gated ion channels (esp. in the TRP family).
And the amount of red light we're talking about is very high. Instantaneous fluxes are like 1000-5000 times higher than ambient indoor light in the red spectrum, and even averaged across a day it's still like an order of magnitude higher than a person who spends their day indoors. For NIR therapy, the difference is even more extreme (commercial LEDs emit essentially zero NIR). While outdoor light exposure is much higher - 15 mW/cm2 red + 20 mW/cm2 NIR, comparable to the 10-100 mW/cm2 of red light therapy - it's broad spectrum, while red light therapy is concentrated around cytochrome c oxidase peaks, so the flux around these specific peaks is ~10-50x higher with red light therapy.
Flux matters a lot because to meaningfully dissociate NO from CCO, you have to do so at faster than the rate that NO and CCO recombine. Sunlight on its own (let alone indoor ambient light) don't do that. It doesn't matter if you're spending all day in the sun vs. 15 minutes in treatment if the sun isn't hitting the threshold effect level.
Another difference, BTW, is not just "shooting it up your nostrils", it's scattering. Sun just hits your skin and much of it is lost through scattering and absorption in blood, esp. hemaglobin. Red light therapy targeting deep structures is delivered by a contact probe that compresses the skin, displacing blood. This increases penetration into deep tissues 2-5x.
My back tells me that my ergonomics are spectacular, thanks.
Why, because the meat you're made of is magic?
FYI, in a LLM, the act of thinking about a concept activates the same circuits as the act of experiencing the concept.
You realize that you're just predicting nerve impulses, right? You don't "feel" anything.
(The brain is constantly making predictions about what every nerve is going to experience. The accuracy of these predictions feeds back to form the basis for learning, to build up a world model)
Tell me, what is the next word in this sentence: "The probability of a citizen of Nigeria committing a terrorist attack in Ireland in the next 20 years is difficult to assess, but as a percentage, it is approximately...." What word comes next? Come on, it's just "predicting tokens", right? It's not like you have to have to have a complex fuzzy world model of how all of the concepts in the context interact and apply that world model iteratively until you reach an answer, right?
Words don't exist in a vacuum. They're a reflection of the thought processes that lead to them. They're not just random sounds. To become able to predict them, you have to unravel the underlying concepts behind them and how they interact, not just "the last word was 'golden', so I'm going to guess that the next word is "apple".
Models work by chained logic. Models plan ahead. Models do all sorts of insane things while deciding what to write, to the point of things figuring out (quite adeptly) if the situation they're in seems suspiciously like a test and then adjusting their behavior to pretend to be aligned while simultaneously carrying conceptual unexpressed thoughts of misbehavior. They think about their own thoughts (metacognition). I'm sorry of this is conceptually not what you want to think about them, but it's the facts about what they are.
And I know you're reading this going to be reacting negatively to words like "thoughts" or whatnot. Well, I'm sorry, there are no other words that express what is going on. Persistent conceptual states existing through and used in chained fuzzy reasoning of unthinkable complexity, exactly what other word is there in the English language for that?
They are not humans. We should not act like they are. But they are something beyond anything we have dealt with before.
It really doesn't take that long if the laptop is hot. Happened to me quite a few times, and I was usually getting up at least once every couple hours, usually more.
Tables/desks also allow you far better posture.
Far better posture than what? The whole notion of 90-degree upright posture being good for you Victorian-era pseudoscience. Sitting upright at 90 degrees is actually the most demanding position your back can be in. Your muscles have to constantly work to balance you against gravity. A 135 degree reclined position, such as in a recliner, is much better for your back than a 90 degree upright posture or a 70 degree forward slouch (e.g. your two typical "table positions"). When you're reclined, the chair takes a lot of the weight off your back.
The whole concept of there being a "correct posture" is generally considered a myth today. There's very little correlation between static posture and the presence of back or neck pain. We're not bridges or columns designed to hold a fixed geometry; we're built for motion. Your body tells you what posture is best for you by your level of comfort/discomfort. Pain means "change positions, blood flow is dropping, tissues are tired". It has nothing to do with "your spine is misaligned" or anything like that.
The one catch to sitting reclined is that your neck is looking more down, usually more than is comfortable for long periods; most people prefer their laptops somewhat elevated. For me, I have a footrest, so my legs are up and bent, and it's up from my thighs to my knees. Laptop trays / lap desks, which often have some padding at the bottom, also add some extra height.
Why do you assume it's a mistake? Maybe Chunder is a Dutch person whose space bar is sticking and they're trying to type something like "regarding the trees", "to the trees", "toward shooting the breeze", "priced in trees", "chug trees", etc.
Do they? I thought most people literally use them on their laps. I do, certainly. Why get a laptop if you're just going to use it sitting at a table as if it were a PC?
I've also gotten this condition, BTW (after getting sick of it, I got a laptop tray, and that solved the problem), though on my thighs, not by abdomen (I sit using a laptop - laying down to use one sounds difficult?). Patterned just like that kid's. I didn't have a name for it before, now I do. I'm not sure why you'd have to go to the hospital to figure it out, as it's very obvious what's causing it - you leave a hot thing on one part of your body for a long time and then it turns red; it's not exactly rocket science to put two and two together.
ED: I just looked it up; about 80-90% of people use them on a table, 10-20% on their lap, so I guess I'm in the minority. *shrug*
ED: US disabled trip type % link didn't post: link.
You're from an anti-car city
This is a deeply foolish statement, frankly
"Hey AI, is London a pro-car or anti car city, and if so, how much?
By global standards, London is considered one of the most anti-car (or transit-first, car-restricting) megacities in the world.
While urban planners usually describe it as “transit-oriented” or “people-first” and critics often frame it as a “war on motorists,” the outcome is the same: driving and owning a private car in London has been made deliberately expensive, slow, and inconvenient compared to using public transit or active travel....
Please be fucking serious in this conversation. You live in a city that has tried to deliberately make life hard on motorists.
I clicked on your link and it said: car 58 minutes, public transport: 49 minutes, walking 2hr17 minutes, cycling 40 minutes
Google is punking me
At best, your argument becomes "transit is faster than car by public transit only during peak hours in one of the most anti-car major cities on Earth which is, I must say, a really damned weak argument against cars.
I find the time by car is usually an underestimate and the time by public transport an over estimate.
Boy, let me tell you about my experience with delays from being just minutes too late from public transit stops (or being on time but they left early), including literally having to spend a night sleeping in an airport in Japan because I just barely missed the last train off the island. Funny, a car has never done that to me.
Your average European city's public transit commute times are worse than Los Angeles's, a city whose transit is famous for traffic.
Cool story.
Why are you so deeply anti-fact? You know you can literally just google things, right? The average commute time in Los Angeles is only half an hour. Again, this is a city famous for traffic. Let's just randomly pick European cities and look up their average public transit commute times. Here's the cities I randomly picked (if you want more, name them and I'll look them up for you if you can't google things yourself):
Istanbul 72-77 min
Rome 52-54 min
Paris (Île-de-France) 47 - 52 min
London 46 - 50 min
Barcelona 48 - 50 min
Madrid 48 - 50 min
Manchester 43 - 45 min
Birmingham 44 min
Venice 42 min
Nice 40 min
Stockholm 34 - 36 min
Prague 32 - 35 min
Warsaw 31 - 35 min
Berlin 31 - 33 min
Hamburg 29 - 31 min
Munich 27 - 29 min
Amsterdam 25 - 30 min
Vienna 25 - 28 min
Yes, cars are faster. And it's not remotely shocking that they are.
Cars are only faster if they are provided with truly colossal amounts of infrastructure
Exactly how much do you think public transit infrastructure costs? By the time they gutted it, California's HSR project was projected to be $231,3B, aka $287M per km. Sure, California is expensive (environmental regulations, seismic concerns, mountains, etc), so let's look at France, probably the cheapest HSR builders in Europe per unit throughput. The London-Lyon corridor - LGV Sud-Est - cost €4,65B to build (would be about €8B today). 409km, so €19,6M/km. Traffic equivalent of a 6-8 lane highway. A 6-lane greenfield highway in Europe costs €12-20M/km. So even the French don't beat road costs with rail.
You think everyone in a city lives at a hospital? *eyeroll*
What are you talking about? Do you think I've had difficulty getting to the local hospital? Do you think my elderly relative (who can no longer drive) does?
Hey, remember just a moment ago the discussion about how when you were looking at public transit during the day you were getting times slightly better than the cars, while when I was looking at them in the evening, they were well more than cars? Yeah, try telling a 3 AM medical emergency to wait until the buses are coming more often, then walk during your medical distress to the bus stop and wait there.
Per kilometer, cycling injury rates are much higher than car rates even if you take bike-car collisions out of the equation (also, injuries are disproportionally among the inebriated, just like car accidents).
So 75% for cars, 2% for bicycles...
https://www.gov.uk/government/... [www.gov.uk]
For the love of YHVH, develop some actual reading comprehension. You completely misread section 5.1 of your own link. The report states that 76% of all DUI-involved vehicles were cars - not that 75% of car crashes involve DUIs. Cars make up 80%+ of all traffic on the road, so of course they make up the majority of DUI vehicles (base rate fallacy). If you look at chart 7 in your own link, only 11,8% of cars in fatal crashes had drink or drugs recorded as a factor. Over 85% of fatal car crashes involve sober drivers.
Furthermore, a ~15% alcohol factor doesn't bridge the gap. Per billion passenger kilometers, the serious injury rate for cars is 13-19, while for bicycles it is 520 -650 (~35-40x higher). Even if you removed every single alcohol-related car crash from existence, cycling would still be over 3000% more dangerous per kilometer.
Trauma registry data shows that 60-80% of serious cycling hospitalizations are single-bike crashes (slips, potholes, falls) with zero cars involved. Because, believe it or not, falling off a bike at 25 km/h onto tarmac easily breaks a collarbone, whereas a modern car protects its occupants from serious injury in the vast majority of impacts.
Look, cars created the suburbs.
Look, no they didn't. I grew up in Suburban London. The suburb and its railway station
What are you talking about? A commuter rail town is not a "suburb". And they do not behave functionally the same. A rail line lets a city expand outward as spokes, linear expansion proportional to the number of lines. Anything off the lines adds significant transit delays to get to the lines, so city growth is linear. Vehicles do not suffer transfer delays and roads scale down more than rail, so cars offered quadratic scaling, cities scaling in all directions. This created a large area of low-density areas for housing, allowing people to live at lower density, with larger homes and gardens - the suburb.
Seriously, are you actually going to argue that the UK is doing well on this front?
You mean the common one? No one here calls vans, lorries or motorbikes "cars"
Well, good for you there?
I like how you shifted the goal posts from freight to commercial traffic
Please make up your mind whether the thing you're wanting to oppose is private traffic, commercial traffic, or passenger vehicles regardless of traffic type, and then get back to me.
it's all the same infrastructure that they use. The lower the utilization rate, the more expensive construction and mainetance becomes per unit traffic.
And yet congestion is also considered to cost the economy a lot of money.
Because it slows down people from getting to where they need to be. Kicking cars off roads is the ultimate possible form of "slowing down cars".
False. Driving is about as represented in the disabled as the general population (60-80% of trips), but is essential to large classes.
False. TFL publish this data.
Look at this - classic reply from you. Shouting "false" first, but *then* taking an interest in the data. UK 60%, US 75-84%.
Maybe in the future try actually checking the data first before reaching your conclusion?
The largest disabled demographic has trouble walking or standing. A bus trip (let alone a walk) requires walking to the stop, waiting outdoors in variable weather (sometimes without a bench or shelter), boarding and getting seated, and walking from the final stop to the destination.
Yes, and?
Are you fucking serious? Have you ever actually been friends with a disabled person, as opposed to them just being random scenery around you? One of my best friends where I used to live had cerebral palsy. Saying "Yes, and?" to the notion that she would wall all the way to a bus stop, wait outdoors (possibly without a bench or shelter) board and get seated, then walk all the way to her destination, is frankly insulting. FYI, she drove most places - her car was fitted with hand controls.
And yet my elderly relative take the bus and train.
Great for your elderly relative to be in good enough shape for that? Nice to know she's not disabled to the point that that is taken from her. Not so nice to know that your city is so hostile to vehicle traffic that it's her only practical option.
A trip is full of uncertainty - broken bus ramps,
I suppose you have numbers on how frequent that is... or are you jut inventing problems?
Why yes, I do! (once again, you don't bother to check things).
In the Netherlands, 11% of bus boarding devices and 25% of automatic wheelchair ramps were broken in a test study. Assistance was inadequate in 14% of trips and on In 8% of the journeys wheelchair users could not travel by bus at all.
In NYC, nearly 25% of wheelchair passengers could not board buses in a study, jumping to 50% in certain boroughs. Even when the lift functioned, there were delays on nearly 50% of trips due to equipment hiccups or driver difficulties.
In London itself, early audits of the fleet showed 20% of ramps failed to deploy. TfL has been working to improve it, but they still get hundreds of complaints annually and remain a major reason why disabled users get passed up at stops.
The fact that you've been angrily pontificating all this time about how easy buses are for disabled people and you didn't even know how high ramp failures are... I mean, it's certainly a statement about you.
Cars deliver door-to-door, with climate control
I kind of forgot how deeply wussified the car addicted are! Climate control!
Got it, misery = good. Maybe you should add spikes to the bus seats as well.
Honestly, I notice this consistently with you people. The more of a hair shirt it is, the more miserable you are, the holier thou art. Exhausted? Great! Took forever? Great! Too hot or too cold? Better! Raining? Even better! Blizzard conditions? Superb!
Get over your cult of misery.
(And once again, a lack of climate control comes down hardest on... drumroll... people in poor health)
Oh yeah I forgot it's impossible to it down when you're on foot.
https://www.medicalsupplies.co... [medicalsupplies.co.uk]
Your notion that the disabled should be walking kilometers per day, and it's okay because they have a seat, is frankly spectacular.
Bikes are flat out for the vast majority of the disabled.
There's a chap round my way who rides a trike.
Great for your friend. Now make him represent "the vast majority of the disabled". And I love your solution that it's okay that he just have a seizure alone on the street if he's wearing a high-viz vest.
(And yes, I'm well familiar with epilepsy, I was married to an epileptic for over a decade)
So the solution is to be rich enough to be chauffeured everywhere and/or have no independence?
You do know what Uber is, right? Among many other things.
And again, this reflects the choices of the disabled, given their health conditions. This is data, not moralistic posturing.
Yes, that's called research on frontier science, on the very bounds of our understanding of the universe.
If it wasn't like that, we wouldn't be referring to dark energy as one of the great unsolved problems in cosmology.
but those seem to be limited to modelling weather similar to that within the collection period
What are you even talking about? They're not Markov models.
The use of money is all the advantage there is to having money. -- B. Franklin
