And found this:

"Q? What is going on here?! Where is the anomaly?!"

"Where's your mommy? Well I don't know!"

"Answer me!"

DId Gemini make a backup before it deleted the files? If not, then apparently artificial intelligence isn't.

TLDR version: "Good ideas" that are actually good are rare, more often than not they aren't.

Long version:

Now, that's not to say people can't experiment with ideas. We know, from US research, that you can temporarily (2 hours max) put humans into a dormant state and revive them successfully. It's used in some types of operation, when a beating heart is not a viable option.

If you do that, glucose uptake drops significantly in regular cells but not in all types of cancer. If the decrease in the most-active of human cells after hibernation is by a factor of X, then it follows you should be able to locally increase glucose-based chemotherapy around the tumour by a factor of X and guarantee healthy cells remain inside levels they can tolerate.

Since hibernation of this sort involves removing all blood and replacing it with a saline solution, washing the chemotherapy out would obviously be possible before reviving the person.

Would this work? Well, it'll work better than bleach, but a quick sanity check shows that this method is (a) impractically risky, (b) likely problematic, (c) likely to produce disastrous side-effects, and (d) unlikely to be effective. Shutting down the body like this is not safe, which is why it is a last-ditch protocol.

What does this tell us? Simply that "good ideas" on paper by someone who isn't an expert are likely very very bad ideas, even if "common sense" says they should be fine.

Now, there ARE cancer treatments being researched which try similar sorts of tricks to allow ultra-high chemotherapy doses, by actual biologists, and those probably will work because they know what they're doing.

Translation: No matter how good you think an idea "should be", it probably isn't. There will be exceptions to that, but you should always start by assuming there's a flaw and look for it. If the idea is actually any good, it'll survive scrutiny and actually improve under it.

Avpidimg confirmation bias is hard, but if you persist in looking for what is wrong with your idea and then try to fix the issue, you'll either avoid penning yourself in a corner or argument-proof your vision. Either way, you're better off.

Inventor?!

Is there absolutely any evidence to back this technique up as successful? Injecting something hazardous to kill cancer isn't new; but you actually need real studies to see if it succeeds.

You aren't actually saying anything.

There's a premise, but it's described by a faulty assumption, everything thereafter is suspect, but since you feel it's important you think it's right.

American?

So the article is t about science, it's about feelings.

If your not willing to disappoint 34 people, why are you trying to disrupt millions?

Maybe start feeding the poor.
Killing less immigrants?
Maybe stop sending people to death camps.

Fucking Americans.

1:1000 queries need a citation in my life.

Honestly, it's probably closer to 1:10,000

The point of the search is to get answers.

How I get those answers is often secondary or completely utterly irrelevant.

I'm not constantly doing research papers, I don't need citations or evidence that would stand up in a court of law, I need a quick answer.

You're effectively saying that they didn't find fraud up front so even if there was fraud it's not the companies fault that perpetuated the fraud.

Now, I do agree the board of directors at HP needs to take some financial responsibility for it too; they were obviously rushing it through, but unless they were specifically a party to the fraud in question that responsibility is not equivalent.

Gigabit goal is stupid.

I don't even have gigabit internet and that's mostly by choice, I get 500mb down and ~200mb up. I used to have 500 symmetrical with a different provider.

I barely see a point in changing this; and I don't use it lightly.

I constantly stream, music, shows, etc. I run applications that pull data on an ongoing basis to do analysis, etc.

I could be using multiple 4K streams and probably still wouldn't care. (I'm not doing 4K anywhere, because I don't see the point in it.)

100-250mb seems to be plenty for most people. 500 is nice, but I seldom hit those numbers without proactively trying to.

Aspiration goals are one thing, but dropping back from 1gb as a goal isn't inherently a bad thing.

Don't get me wrong, FCC is a gong show; but not for this reason.

The summary itself points out that intelligence or intellect is not the issue, as it is too broad a term. At stake in true knowledge (episteme). Plato and Aristotle (inter alia) agree that true knowledge is immediate non-calculative intellectual intuition. We can call it the aha-experience (aha Erlebnis), i.e. when you just intellectually get something (like when you finally understand a calculus problem, beyond simply being able to follow the steps). For Plato, it is what makes truths true. If that sounds nonsense, it is also experienced in your immediate intellectual intuition that you are thinking, which is present (implicitly or explicitly) every time you think. It is not a chain of reasoning - it is your understanding that you are reasoning. LLMs do not have this immediate intuition - only the chain of calculations (dianoia).

>Big announcements were made for sub-10kg laptops (22lbs).

I had a backlit Macintosh Portable (actually, I still have it, but it needs recapping). In its carrying case, and with power supply and spare battery, it came to 26 pounds.

Which was the same weight as the desktop Macs of the time.

I actually hurt my shoulder lugging it through an airport once.

I think it was the powerbook 180 that replaced it on which I had a problem with airport security--they wanted to see a C: prompt. I think it was finally a manager that told him to let me through.

Very few businesses that are involved in IT in any way have anything remotely close to decent security.

Basically, they need to reintroduce the US' Internet Czar, who should have meaningful authority and who should impose meaningful IT security standards. That small companies can't afford to hire security staff is irrelevant as they mostly either work in the cloud using SAAS, at which point their provider should be handling all the security. If you want to roll your own, then you should accept the burden of paying for adequate security. Minimum standards apply to just about everything else in life, and I'd rate getting IT security right just a little bit more important than getting cars to not roll over (you can usually survive a roll) or preventing toasters from spontaneously combusting (you can park electrical appliances away from flammable stuff).

You can avoid catastrophes with defective appliances but you can't avoid catastrophes with defective IT systems.