If that were obvious, then it would have been thrown out of court. The entire reason it's in court still is because it's not clear if it was legal or not.

I don't think it's the AI specifically, but the fact that they've used AI to let go of competent (and expensive) people.

I'm using AI as a coding assist and code reviewer myself. It is impressive how often it is spot on, but it is also impressive with how much conviction it tells you one thing, then after you correct it it admits that that was totally bonkers. AI or not, you need someone in the loop with a deep understanding of what it actually is you are trying to accomplish.

I can fully imagine an AI without guidance to go off the rails more and more over time. But I can imagine the same thing for a room full of junior programmers.

I am honestly surprised how long it took them to ruin it. I moved my projects off github years ago, expecting it to fail much sooner.

Surely you are correct.

People need to look at fact, not say incorrect things just because they hate Trump.

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

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.

Something other than a single continuous infrasound might. That wasn't tested, just one particular not well described sound.

At some point you just need to develop a natural immunity to poison oak (and ivy). It's not hard and is probably preferable to spraying your environment with broad spectrum antibiotic/herbicides and heavy metals (which is what roundup is).

They showed that the particular infrasound they used did nothing with a handful of people.

It's more nuanced than that. There may be some particular characteristic of infrasound that cause the issue.You would need to look at the infrasound in places that have reports of the phenomenon and try to replicate that first, then try to find commonalities in the sound characteristics and come up with a wholly artificial sound that replicates the phenomenon.

The Mythbusters showed that whatever particular Infrasound they used in the test did nothing statistically significant is their small sample.

Consider, I propose that sound can make people afraid. So I get a group of 10 people and one at a time I put them in a room for 5 minutes. 2.5 minutes in, I play the sound of a kitten mewing at normal volume. Nobody shows signs of fear or panic. Myth busted? Might the results have been different with a bicycle horn? Bear growling? Gunshot?

And that's why so many are skeptical of our court system.

I don't know but I understand it was a problem before Trump, maybe before Trump was born.

I am irritated that you completely ignored the substance of my post. Way to attack a strawman.

When mythbusters debunks something, they usually debunk it in a single scenario. They don't go through all the effort to exhaustively explore the search space. That is why they are criticized for not being scientific.

Mythbusters shines when they prove something is possible. Break a glass with your voice? That's where they are at they strongest. (There is still room for alternate hypothesis, maybe the singer held the glass too tightly? But it's a solid piece of experimental evidence).

Making it continuous avoids having strange behaviours near bracket limits (where a pay raise can result in an actual pay cut). This is something the rich fear as much as anyone, hence the anxiety around whether earning more will get you more. With an S-curve, you can provide that as a hard guarantee whilst also making the current notion of high-scoring (billion and trillion dollar pay packets) completely senseless economically -- without denying the rich the glory if that's the kink they're into.

It also means that you don't have an "upper bracket" where people well beyond it are essentially getting free cash. It's also more computer-friendly. It also becomes possible to make a much higher maximum tax.

But, yeah, you're correct in principle.