"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.
It can, lots of countries, especially America regulate things outside their borders.
Laws can be enforced against local subsidiaries or any foreign executive who happens to wander into an area you have an extradition agreement with. Or in Americas case, any country you can successfully invade to kidnap someone. And in Putin's case anywhere you can get an assassination squad in. Also Israel's Mossad unit is notorious for plausible deniable foreign enforcement.
This isn't a question of should, it's a question of what can physical be done.
Yes, and?
Countries, including America, have investigatory rules where you are not allowed to talk about it at all. Want to do business in a country? You need to obey their rules. And you don't have a leg to stand on complaining if you have similar roles because then you're not saying the rules are morally wrong, you're saying you're special.
It is absolutely not improper for the UK to do such a thing and the US would have no qualms about using a national security letter (is that the right term?) on an American subsidiary of a UK company. It's how laws and jurisdictions work. Having a foreign ownership doesn't give you special dispensation to break a country's laws. Apple UK are absolutely subject to every single one of the UK's laws. They're also subject to quite a lot of American ones, having an American owner, but that's their problem not the UK's, and doesn't give any special treatment other than what America can force on the world under the universal law of might is right.
Note this is all orthogonal to what I personally think of the RIPA (my quite strong opinions are in other much older Slashdot posts).
My back tells me that my ergonomics are spectacular, thanks.
Like another pseudonym makes a difference or changes the value of what I said.
The fact that you're unwilling to pay the incredibly low price of attaching even a pseudonym to your statement speaks volumes. Not even by mentioning it in your AC post.
With Passkeys, they have access to your stuff without any oversight by courts and discovery. There are ZERO 4 and 5th Amendment rights to stuff protected by passkeys. They can compel you to unlock your phone, and put your finger on the print reader, and facial scan you
Legally it is untenable how much access they have with Passkeys.
Passcodes cannot be compelled (XKCD hammer notwithstanding). 4th and 5th Amendments apply.
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.
Don't sweat it -- it's only ones and zeros. -- P. Skelly
