Well, some of that is for classes for people who can't see that default 3-pixel wide scrollbar on Windows 11 in high contrast dark mode. :-)

Yeah, you're blessed to have one of each. Until they start conspiring against you, which you KNOW is going to happen.

For all my pro-life ramblings, we were granted only one child. He's 22 now. I'm not sure if I'm jealous or worried about you. Keeping up with two toddlers after age 50 can't be easy.

In other news, by marrying close to my age, I'm spending 51 to 54 in caregiving activities to the point that I can't keep up with a 40 hour a week job, and the job market is such ain't nobody gonna hire me anyway, so I'm striking out on my own and trying to trick old people into paying me $300 to back up their Windows 10 boxes and switch on TPM in UEFI if it exists:

https://informationr.us/

Honestly, it was the tone of the message, which is admittedly difficult to derive from a forum. IMHO, the proper response would have been one that questioned whether the 'upscale grocer' selling spareribs at $6.99/lb vs $1.49/lb were at different ends of the subjective or objective quality spectrum. In my case, they are literally the same brand: Smithfield. The only difference is that Aldi is $5+/lb less expensive.

That said, IMO, unless we're talking about a butcher that sources heritage-breed Berkshire (or the like) pork from a local farmer, I don't really give a flying fuck where the previously cheap cut of meat I'm going to put on my smoker for 6h is sourced from.

You told us it was AI. Saying it gives incorrect responses is redundant.

Why would I pay $6.99/lb at one of the 'upscale grocers' in town for spareribs when I can get them at Aldi for $1.49? I, too, drive a Mercedes, but it doesn't mean I'm a fucking moron w/my money.

It is literally a summarization model. Its context window is the text to summarize. It was literally trained on being given text as a context, and summaries as outputs.

I am sorry to hear that, and deeply sympathize.

I am curious to know what kind of cancer (their are about 200 different types, with VERY different outcomes), and what stage it was when it was discovered.

The reason I ask is that with screening, certain types of cancer are survivable (e.g. prostate, colon, some type of skin cancers, ...etc)
Other types are killers no matter what, and it is only a matter of time (bile duct, pancreas, glioblastoma, ...etc)

AI Overview literally tells you what sources it's drawing on. I don't see why people are capable of looking at what the sources are when they're Google search answers but not when they're AI Overview source links, but apparently, that is hard for some people.

This. Most people inevitably respond in these threads talking about "the model's training". AI Overview isn't like something like ChatGPT. It's a minuscule summarization model. It's not tasked to "know" anything - it's only tasked to sum up what the top search results say. In the case of the "glue on pizza" thing, one of the top search results was an old Reddit thread where a troll advised that. AI overview literally tells you what links it's drawing on.

Don't get me wrong, there's still many reasons why AI overview is a terrible idea.

1) It does nothing to assess for trolling. AI models absolutely can do that, they just have not.
2) It does nothing to assess for misinfo. AI models absolutely can do that, they just have not.
3) It does nothing to assess for scams. AI models absolutely can do that, they just have not.

And the reason the have not is that they need to run AI Overview hundreds of thousands of times per second, so they want the most absolutely barebones lightweight model imaginable. You could run their model on a cell phone it's so small.

Bad information on the internet is the main source of errors, like 95% of them. But there are two other types of mistakes as well:

4) The model isn't reading web pages in the same way that humans see them, and this can lead to misinterpreted information. For example, perhaps when rendered, there's a headline "Rape charges filed against local man", and below it a photo of a press conference with a caption "District Attorney John Smith", and then below that an article about the charges without mentioning the man's name. The model might get fed: "Rape charges filed against local man District Attorney John Smith", and report John Smith as a sex offender.

5) The model might well just screw up in its summarization. It is, after all, as miniscule as possible.

I personally find deploying a model with these weaknesses to be a fundamentally stupid idea. You *have* to assess sources, you *can't* have a nontrivial error rate in summarizations, etc. Otherwise you're just creating annoyance and net harm. But it's also important for people to understand what the errors actually are. None of these errors have anything to do with "what's in the model's training data". The model's training data is just random pieces of text followed by summaries of said text.

Neutrinos are called ghost particles because of how little they interact with other matter. They're constantly streaming through your body without interacting with you. A solar neutrino passing through the entire Earth has less than 1 in a million odds of interacting with the Earth.

Not like this with this - the energy here equates to a couple hundredths of a joule. Now, the "Oh My God! Particle" had a much higher energy, about three orders of magnitude higher. That's knock-photos-over sort of energy (and a lot more than that). The problem is that you can't deposit it all at once. A ton of energy does get transferred during the first collision, but it's ejecting whatever it hit out of whatever it was in as a shower of relativistic particles that - like the original particle - tend to travel a long distance between interactions. Whatever particle was hit is not pulling the whole target with it, it's just buggering off as a ghostly energy spray. There will be some limited chains of secondary interactions transferring more kinetic energy, but not "knock pictures over" levels of energy transferred.

Also, here on the surface you're very unlikely to get the original collision; collisions with the atmosphere can spread the resultant spray of particles out across multiple square kilometers before any of them reaches the surface.

The average ICE car burns its entire mass worth of fuel every year. Up in smoke into our breathing air, gone, no recycling.

The average car on the road lasts about two decades, and is then recycled, with the vast majority of its metals recovered.

The manufacturing phase is not the phase you have to worry about when it comes to transportation.

Any sources for this

Anonymous (2021). "How My Uncle’s Friend’s Mechanic Proved EVs Are Worse." International Journal of Hunches, 5(3), 1-11.

Backyard, B. (2018). "EVs Are Worse Because I Said So: A Robust Analysis." Garage Journal of Automotive Opinions, 3(2), 1-2.

Dunning, K. & Kruger, E. (2019). "Why Everything I Don’t Like Is Actually Bad for the Environment." Confirmation Bias Review, 99(1), 0-0.

Johnson, L. & McFakename, R. (2022). "Carbon Footprint Myths and Why They Sound Convincing After Three Beers." Annals of Bro Science, 7(2), 1337-42.

Lee, H. (2025). "Numbers I Felt Were True". Global Journal of Speculative Engineering, 22(1), 34-38.

Outdated, T. (2015, never revised). "EVs Are Bad Because of That One Study From 2010 I Misinterpreted." Obsolete Science Digest, 30(4), 1-5.

Tinfoil, H. (2020). "Electric Cars Are a Government Plot (And Other Things I Yell at Clouds)." Conspiracy Theories Auto, 5(5), 1-99.

Trustmebro, A. (2019). "The 8-Year Rule: Why It’s Definitely Not Made Up." Vibes-Based Research, 2(3), 69-420.

Wrong, W. (2018). "The Art of Being Loudly Incorrect About Technology." Dunning-Kruger Journal, 1(1), 1-?.

He clearly got tired of trying to build the Antichrist ;)

... to be dissected as research subjects?

Did a dog conduct this study?