So yeah your AI can outperform a doctor that gets 5 minutes with the patient before having to move on to the next one in order to keep their private equity Masters satisfied.

So, suppose, we stick it to the "private equity Masters", compel them to double the number of doctors — forget for a second, who is going to pay for them — and afford them a whopping 10 minutes with the patient.

ChatGPT will still beat humans... And it will be getting better with every month, whereas the humans will not...

A new study from Harvard Medical School and Beth Israel Deaconess found that an OpenAI reasoning model outperformed experienced ER doctors at diagnosing and managing patient cases

AI is sufficiently anthropomorphic to be capable of making mistakes. Demanding perfection from it is stupid. It does not need to be error-free. It just needs to be better than humans...

The classic kind, with one button.

You mean like the one on Dagwood's shirt?

Because, that's what we're (y'know, the sheeple) are told!

And that's because Ubuntu is designed to be used by Windows refugees and wannabe geeks who like bragging that they're using Linux but aren't interested in learning how it works or how to do any system maintenance that can't be done in a point-and-drool gooey. And for those of you who think I'm being too harsh, or find my description striking too close to home, try this: go to the main Ubuntu forum with a simple problem on an Ubuntu box that's past EOL and see how they respond. Then, do the same thing with an EOL Fedora box at one of their forums. Guess which one will help you and which one won't.

Wow, you allow 8 hours of continuous driving in the US?

(Edit crank comments on child labor)

...In other parts of the world the number is much lower. (EU rules is 4.5 hours with 45min break, maximum 9 hours of driving in any one day with 2 exceptions to 10 hours per week).

It's because in the US we're not all pussies...and we get stuff done.

I prefer AppImage. Flatpak feels like it went way past the point of diminishing returns for efficiency and functionality vs. complexity.

It's totally different in a place like the US. We have more land than we could reasonably populate and plenty of natural resources. We could absorb enormous numbers of people and we would be better off for it.

No....we have room for people that WANT to assimilate into the US, learn the common language, and believe in what the US stands for....not to come in and tear it down and form into something else.

Wanting to come here and start sharia law....that's a hard NO.

We do not want people coming here that on a basic level disagree with what the US stands for, what the US constitution was set up for, and do not want people that do not want to become a US citizen and embracing what we stand for.....we do not want people coming into the US and staying, that hold loyalty and allegiance to foreign countries and entities over the good will and preservation of the USA.

No....diversity when it includes anti-American feelings and politics are NOT something that is welcome here.

NO...not everyone is welcome nor should they be.

I'd like one, but I just dropped about $4500 on the new Widelux X swing lens 35mm camera that Jeff Bridges and co just released for pre-production this week.

I generally buy myself 1 or 2 nice toys a year and well, this took up one slot.

Just proof that AMERICAN government is bad.

Other governments all over the world manage to build rail systems, it's just here in North America that we're deeply useless.

A good question that deserves a good answer. Back in Biblical Times, Hebrew didn't need to use vowels because the language is so regular that if you know the language and its alphabet you know what the vowels are and where they go. Vowels were developed and put into use so that people who didn't know Hebrew very well could still know how to pronounce the words. And, there are many people today who only bother with the vowels if they expect what they're writing to be read by people like me who can read Hebrew out lout f(Thanks, phonics!) but don't know what the words mean.

Perhaps you need to run the 'testing' release, currently forky. That gets you much more current software versions.

Everyone wants roads near their house. If you don't have a road going to your house then your house is worthless. Once the government has a right of way for a road, expanding the road might be expensive, but it doesn't get the whole community involved in a series of lawsuits.

The only people that want to live near the train tracks, on the other hand, are the people out in the middle of the California desert that would love to have a way to easily get to the parts of California that aren't a wasteland. In the nice parts of California, every home owner within visual distance of the proposed route has hired a lawyer and vowed to fight the tracks to the death.

This means that California has built a tiny bit of tracks out in the middle of nowhere (near Bakersfield but not in Bakersfield). It also means that every single foot from this point on is likely to get even more astronomically expensive. The homeowners involved know that houses that are far enough away from the tracks so that their home value doesn't plummet are going to get a windfall as their prime real estate will become even more valuable with decent public transit. The rail system is going to be a serious amenity eventually. The homeowners near the tracks, on the other hand, are going to see a serious drop to their net worth. Everyone in California wants more light rail, but only if it doesn't go through their neighborhood.

It could easily be that California real estate is simply too expensive in this day and age for something like this to be built.

You haven't priced plane tickets in the past month or so, have you?

Considering what the end price tag for this will be at "completion" (if in fact it is ever completed and running)....I can't imagine ticket prices for this train will be very competitive to the airplane ticket for same destination(s).

I don't criticise the concept, but the concern is whether it has long-term adverse neurological effects, and a "quick study" doesn't sound like it'll tell us that.

It's essential we have more ways of dealing with treatment-resistant depression. We just need to make sure that they're less harmful than the depression itself. You willl, of course, recall that each and every single bad decision by medical boards to approve a treatment has been because they wanted to rush through a "medical cure" that turned into a medical hell.

I'm not stupid enough to say that mushrooms would cause long-term damage, but equally I'm not stupid enough to say that we should only look to see if it has short-term benefits.

The correct approach would seem to be to make sure there aren't any immediate hazards and, if there aren't, then to continue the study to check for consequences of long-term use whilst authorising short-term prescription use, on the understanding that the prescription use permission will be extended outwards to whatever the data cansafely tolerate. In other words, don't deprive people of necessary treatment but equally don't claim greater confidence than the data supports.

This tightrope has only got to be walked because nobody has been seriously studying depression for a very long time and now we've got a hunge backlog of cases that are refusing to shut up, making it hard to ignore. This research should have been done years ago, but politicians were far too ignorant and far too swayed by religious money. But that doesn't mean we should rush.

I'm sure the scientists know how to keep a level head, but the CEOs and the politicians clearly can't and they're the ones who will be making the demands.

only outlaws will have weed-free landscaping?