lolc

Weird article because it offhandedly mentions the term "healthy vaccinee effect[0]" but does not explain it. So while I was reading and wondering whether all these studies they mention were observational, they drop the term somewhere in the middle and then just continue their breathless listing of vaccines' inverse correlation to dementia.

The word interventional is not found anywhere in the article and it is hard for me to believe there are no interventional studies in this field.

> Multiple large observational studies have found that routine adult vaccines are associated with a reduced risk of dementia, with some showing risk reductions of 25% to 40%.

The observed difference is most likely caused by people with declining health being less likely to vaccinate. My assumption is that the article was compiled to show a conclusion that is not supported if one looks only a little bit further.

[0] https://www.science.org/content/blog-post/healthy-vaccinee-e...

As a diabetic I have done this exact exercise: Look at photos and guess carbs. Two slices of bread is easy mode.

Why assume trick ingredients?

The victims went after a slanderer who systematically profited from his lies. Don't see why we should compare him to randos on Twitter.

"Great idea wise customer, I will certainly mock one out just for you!"

Yea sorry I didn't follow the thread properly.

You haven't answered my question. When do I switch addresses in DNS?

Not clear what your point is. The Signal server wakes up the app via an empty message. At most the info this conveys is that a Signal app got a message to pull.

At what point could I confidently publish the addresses 1:2:3:4:0:0:0:1 and 1:2:3:4:0:0:0:2 in DNS records for people to reach those two servers? After my ISP has switched, or after everybody's ISP has switched?

The idea that any ISP would do a Dagen H is very alien to how an ISP thinks. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dagen_H

I read through some of the discussion on Wikipedia. The operator of the bot comes across as agreeable and arrogant at the same time.

Questioned about it, he's asking his rig why it did something and quotes verbatim from the generated text. Then when a Wikipedian asks how the bot logged in, berates them how it's all ephemeral code and he could only guess.

If you want a glimpse into the mindset, read this interview: https://www.niemanlab.org/2026/03/i-was-surprised-how-upset-...

The overall attitude is that this was going to happen anyway and we should feel lucky he's so helpful. I rather agree with another commenter here that this was "pissing in the fountain". Whatever pure motivations there may have been, cleanup was left to others.

Why would it need to? Users police themselves :-)

What I want to see is a dating service where I can pledge some money to some charity. Everybody on the site can check what I've pledged, and I can release it anytime. The service can take their cut, fine.

Now when I meet somebody through the service, and we think it's serious, we can release that money. And we can check whether the other did too!

Sure there will still be profiles with people that don't pledge, because they're just testing the waters, or poor, or scammers. Whatever. Point is I can send a signal that at some point I want to be done with the service, and then pay them for that.

I don't think it's as easy as looking at open weight API prices. We don't know whether the operators are making a profit on all the hardware they bought. Maybe the prices we pay just cover electricity. And it's not even certain that running costs are covered by API prices: The operators may be siphoning content and subsidize from selling that.

In the current volatile environment, the API prices are more of a baseline where we can assume it can't be much cheaper to operate these models.

This, to me, is the strongest argument to offer these slop generators. It provides an incentive to follow the robots.txt.

I wouldn't call it cheating. But I have no trouble drawing lines that exclude some people, if that levels the field for a bigger group. In this case the female olympics would soon be known as the intersex olympics given the selection pressure. I can understand the decision to make the competiton more interesting by barring intersex people. No need to frame it as cheating though.

I don't know the specifics in this case, but they can be biologically male and use the female gender. How would that conflict your point?

Just comparing genes, a male human is more closely related with all male chimps than with any female human.

Whoa hold your brush. US admin agency over wars that affect oil prices was very different in 2022 compared to 2026.

To me, how the death threat is phrased is not very important. What would you drop from the title to include that?

Please realize that Switzerland holds many votes per year. There is no big voting day where I have to go somewhere. I could go cast my ballot in person, but I can also fill out and send in my ballot in advance. That is entirely routine and part of my day like other paperwork.

The problem with e-voting is that it is much harder to validate. My paper ballot rests at a community building where it will be counted on the day of the vote. I can understand the process from start to finish in physical terms. Throw in a USB stick and anything could happen. It is possible we will never know what went wrong here.

This is a pattern I observe frequently where the text generator replaces very specific code comments with generic versions. Same for variable names that are written in blood.

I do wonder whether "semantic ablation" is the right term for what is going on. Ablation I think fits because it refers to the removal of layers. And yes they are semantic layers. But ablation refers to the process, not the result. So on its own shortening "ablation of semantic layers" to "semantic ablation" is problematic. It sounds like semantics are used for ablation. "Semantically streamlined" could capture the intended meaning but of course streamlining has a positive ring to it, where ablation sounds problematic as it should. I guess "semantic fusiform" is too obscure :-)

Good example, there are scandals around custody too!

> Don't live in Sweden if you have kids, I guess!

I heard of countries where parents are fond of having firearms around.

Who is the "establishment"? All power is granted and can be withdrawn. But the brick will not know.

> Then there's the weak, pathetic, scrawny dweeb who sits on a bench dressed up in fancy robes, who passes judgment on big strong men in handcuffs daily and sends them to prison for years. He may have some level of power, but he's Beta as they come. He was placed in power by an Alpha.

Whoa that's a lot to unpack. Most pressingly, why do you need to point out that judges are not "at the top"? They perform a duty with a lot of responsibility. And that is that. No, where I live judges don't get appointed by "alphas".

> Not everyone can be at the top of the bell curve.

This is me nitpicking and I understand you mean to say that "the alphas" are special. But "at the top of the bell curve" is where everyone is! The freaks are found down in the tails. Exceptional people will be in the middle with everybody else on most metrics that show a normal distribution.

I'd say you'll have to look at metrics that show a not-normal distribution to cluster "the alphas" together. But then I don't really know how "being alpha" is defined. So maybe there is a metric where humans distribute in a bell curve and "the alphas" crowd out one side of it? Got an example?

From my read you said something different from what OP said. They voiced that there was a wiping of preference that was noticeable, where you said "it does this all the time." Sure both can describe the same thing, but they don't have to be. Why double down instead of accepting that this time it might be different?

I'm curious what scenarios your imagining. Because I can't think of a single situation where a track limit should not be applied automatically, at least to trains with passengers on them.

I guess they'd argue that the people in China don't count, because people in China don't get to choose Google. But yeah, the stats they use from "StatCounter" are clearly not representative for what the world uses.

I'm talking about how language can be used without misunderstanding. In what instances would you front a personal pronoun in English?

> It's not a coincidence that the arguments that are free to wander around the sentence are the ones that bear explicit markings of the nature of their relationship to the verb.

The thrust was that Turkish allows more liberties than other languages. Yes that is due to the Turkish language having more strict markings. What are we disagreeing about?

Yeah sure there are other languages where the cases allow flexible argument ordering. I should have written "another language" not "any other language" because I meant the languages I know. I can see how it'd work in Latin. Though poetry takes a lot of license with language, so by quoting from poetry, we're at the extreme end of what a language can do. From what little I remember in Latin there would be examples where one couldn't distinguish the cases.

The only variation in your English examples is with the prepositions. English is a language where you just do not get that kind of flexibility. Unless, again, you do poetry. Can't even put the inflected pronoun first even though it would be unambiguous:

    Him Colonel Mustard killed.

Let's look at this contrived example:

    The policeman bites the dog.

Notice how in English I can't reverse them easily. Have to get creative:

    The dog the policeman bites.

Stilted and prone to get misunderstood isn't it? In German, this is possible:

    Den Hund beisst der Polizist.

Though if you do that, people think you made a mistake and will misunderstand you. The cases are rather weak in German. No comparison to Turkish:

    Köpeği ısırıyor polis.

They do it for emphasis as part of everyday speech. You can put the subject first or last or in the middle and there is no confusion. Though admittedly that example is stretching it :-)

Haha I can read some casual Turkish and this made my day!

Funny how the case system of Turkish is both strong and standardized enough for this to work well. I don't know any other language where flexible argument order would work so well.