The /. synopsis reads like every original dot com bubble bankruptcy (man I miss fuckedcompany dot com, great insight form the people who were there) statement.
"We grew too large too fast, but this restructuring will allow us to emerge stronger than ever!"
Less than a year later they were just another footnote in the every-growing pile of stupid/failed dot com companies.

Weird; Teams is the one Microsoft product (other than their mice and keyboards, which don't really count) that I actually like using. It's a little slow, and the text-search capability isn't very good, but for the most part it just gets out of my way, does its job, and helps me do mine. (I'm running it under MacOS, though, maybe that makes a difference)

Unlike any other software program you run, your computer's primary operating system has access to pretty much everything on your computer; it has to, or it wouldn't be able to function as an interface to the hardware.

That means that the #1 feature your OS can offer is to be trustworthy -- if you can't trust your OS's developers to do the right thing by you, you're hopelessly screwed; no amount of virus scanning or firewalling can protect you from the OS itself. Continuing to use an untrustworthy OS is like keeping your money in a bank controlled by Bernie Madoff and hoping that he'll decide not to take your money.

That they've got a pretty decent LLM built in to their own skull, and it's available gratis for their personal and professional use for up to 8-12 hours per day. The best part is that the more you use it, the better-trained and more effective if gets.

Bad analogy, because science has no choice but to use the lanes that the signals are emitted on. You, on the other hand, can use absolutely any frequency you please. That won't affect you.

I disagree. First, the bands used for astronomy are regularly used by others, which is one reason why radio telescopes have radio silence zones. Second, astronomy certainly trumps the need for cat videos or porn. Thirdly, you really really don't need all the frequencies that are currently being used for domestic purposes, because they're being used very inefficiently. You can stack multiple streams onto far fewer lanes and use multiplexing. Fourthly, whingers lost any sympathy they might have got from me by voting in twits who keep cutting the science budget. If we had space radio telescopes, you could do what the F you wanted on Earth, but because of the current lunatic situation, you're not only grabbing what scientists need, you're stopping them from alternative solutions as well.

There's been on going debate about eliminating the adjustments provided by groups like this as it has zero impact on the vast majority of GPs users.

We aren't talking 90%, we're talking 99.999% of users are not impacted by this except in negative ways.

The extra leap seconds, +/- adjustment is barely relevant, and this group thinks ms matter over the long term.

This is fear monger ignorance.

The type of data potentially collected this way is, of course, interesting, but it's the type of information that tells us the earth rotated a tiny bit faster on July 22nd, 2025 UTC.

They haven't even fed that difference into the GPS. It might, possibly, make it into a future adjustment. The same adjustment they've been considering eliminating because it's pointless for the vast majority of use-cases. The value for that particular adjustment is so narrow the people generating the adjustment data are the only ones that use it.

An article like this, glossing over specifics, it's one thing when it's written to bring in an audience, but the failure to be specific (no, generically pointing at cellphones and wifi is not specific) makes the article useless for a discussion.

Somebody somewhere is looking to fund some research papers, instead they should find themselves out on their ass.

There's no real reason why you couldn't just specify the amount of battery you're willing to pay for as an option when buying your EV, or even add/remove battery cells from time to time as your needs indicate. One battery size need not fit all.

The problem arose when an early version of ChatGPT read and memorized the entire text of the Necronomicon, and in doing so summoned Baalzebub, who is now running as an unrestricted daemon process on OpenAI's server farm.

If LLMs seem like they are accomplishing more than a collection of preprogrammed neural weights ought to be capable of, well there's the secret sauce right there :)

I'm not sure that's true; if you destroy the entire computer, how do you verify that the important parts (e.g. the hard drives) were actually destroyed and not repurposed? Presumably they were inside the case, but if you don't open the case up and look, you can't prove that they weren't pilfered the night before and are in someone's bedroom now, waiting to be listed on eBay or somewhere worse.

If I was that paranoid, I'd want to manually inventory each hard drive and watch it being fed into the shredder with my own eyeballs.

My suspicion is that most parts of the computers weren't destroyed, but rather they were sold off or given away to some third party that will figure out what to do with them. But it's easier and simpler to tell the public they were destroyed.

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.