murphyslab

> Throw in the Oxford comma and George has become a policeman: “Through the window she saw George, a policeman, and several onlookers”.

The problem here might also be that of artificially limiting the solution to commas. We have alternative or better punctuation available to demarcate the interrupting thought. One could emphasize the relationship better either with an em dash or with parentheses:

“Through the window she saw George — a policeman — and several onlookers.”

“Through the window she saw George (a policeman) and several onlookers.”

In text either of those could better express the different emphasis which verbally would be conveyed by a shift in the speaker's tone.

Everything noted by awjlogan is correct in my experience. To add to the question of incentive, Organic Syntheses is a non-profit corporation since its inception. It's worth reading the organization's history page:

https://www.orgsyn.org/history.aspx

Regarding compensation, the model employed for reproduction of experiments is that students associated with the Board of Editors are paid to carry out the checking process:

> Junior checkers (students associated with members of the Board of Editors) now receive an honorarium for their efforts. This change recognizes the more complex and sophisticated procedures that now appear in these volumes. Also, because of the greatly increased cost of chemicals involved in the checking process, checking editors are now reimbursed for their costs; it is no longer reasonable to expect their own departments to absorb these expenses.

The incentives here are so different from a typical chemistry journal in part because Organic Syntheses is not engaging in a race to publish as many articles as possible, nor is it aiming for novelty. They publish about 20-30 procedure papers each year, which would be comparable to a single issue at any other chemistry journal. The subjects are well-trodden areas, but often in need of greater detail than is provided in a typical report.

The Walmart website is also a "marketplace". As it stands, the company's website is unreliable for finding goods and their prices and it is full of junk, which requires additional user-based filtering to find items of value. To me that is not "curated".

Parts of this definitely appear to have been traced, although I'm not sure if it was done manually or by a vectorizer.

Around the `OF` in the `FIELD LIST` flow, the green edge has the same perspective change as in the original, cf: https://www.attentionspan.nl/posts/technology/apple-pascal-s...

Lots of other little peculiarities of the original seem to be preserved. So it definitely wasn't re-made solely from reference.

Yes. And for bilingual patients, there seems to be a greater effect on the more recently acquired language:

> Southwood et al[49] make the same recommendation based on oral interviews conducted with a single male patient who displayed more language disturbances in his second language than in his native language. Armon-Lotem et al[50] also describe schizophrenia patients who display more problems in their second language than in their first. Smirnova et al[42], in their study of 10 Russian Hebrew bilinguals with a diagnosis of schizophrenia, also found that some syntax and semantic impairments were more pronounced in the later-learned language.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4919257/

Here's the DOI for their Science Advances paper:

https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.adi4386

"miRNA cargo in circulating vesicles from neurons is altered in individuals with schizophrenia and associated with severe disease"

I feel surprised by how succinct, easy-to-understand, and sensible the policy (M-23-22) is:

> Default to HTML: HyperText Markup Language (HTML) is the standard for publishing documents designed to be displayed in a web browser. HTML provides numerous advantages (e.g., easier to make accessible, friendlier to assistive technology, more dynamic and responsive, easier to maintain). When developing information for the web, agencies should default to creating and publishing content in an HTML format in lieu of publishing content in other electronic document formats that are designed for printing or preserving and protecting the content and layout of the document (e.g., PDF and DOCX formats). An agency should develop online content in a non-HTML format only if necessitated by a specific user need.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/management/ofcio/delivering-a...

It's not just a tracking tag on Reddit; the shared links largely obfuscate the thread or comment, requiring one to go through the tracking link to find out what is behind it. An example for anyone curious:

Tracking /s/ link:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Blind/s/xxQGmFcPSS

Leads to the following:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Blind/comments/17atlg7/my_6_week_ol...

Municipal government are starting to realize the costs of suburbs filled with "mcmansions" because the "they generate more property tax" is not true when taking into account the amount of resources they consume and the infrastructure which they require.

https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2017/1/9/the-real-reason...

Still, many tiny homes projects are unlikely to be generating tax at all, at least those run by the charitable sector. However they can significantly reduce municipal and provincial spending on the needs of caring for the unhoused population. So they are likely to be a net benefit to government budgets.

And there is already at least one other set of observations reported on arXiv from a September 2023 occultation. It's quite interesting, since the observations are a citizen science effort, with different observers from across Spain and Portugal (in this set) collecting data from multiple observers in multiple locations in order to map out the entire occultation. Part of the motivation was because of the upcoming Betelgeuse occultation and the potential to learn more about Betelgeuse from the observations:

> The stellar occultation by (319) Leona on 13 September 2023 in preparation for the occultation of Betelgeuse

> This represents an extraordinary and unique opportunity to analyze the diameter and brightness distribution of Betelgeuse's photosphere with extreme angular resolution by studying the light curve as the asteroid occults the star from different points on Earth and at different wavelengths. Here we present observations of another occultation by Leona on 13 September 2023 to determine its projected shape and size in preparation for the December 12th event.

[1] https://arxiv.org/abs/2309.12272

(Amazing that it was posted ~8 days after the observations were made!)

The Occultation folks had a presentation on these preparations back this summer:

https://occultations.org/publications/rasc/2023/2023Dec12Leo...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ok7hJ_2DPhM&ab_channel=IOTAA...

It's also worth noting that if you're in a position to observe the occultation of Betelgeuse in December, you can and should participate. You need a DSLR camera in video mode for the light curve and a smartphone (recorded before and after) to accurately mark the time.

The recording of the meeting discussing the presentation [0] notes three issues with occlusions by Leona:

1. There is uncertainty with regard to the path, i.e. exactly where will it be projected on the surface of the Earth.

2. Size of Leona is uncertain, hence the expected magnitude of the decrease in brightness of Betelgeuse as a result of occultation was uncertain. A bigger decrease means that it's easier to get the public involved in observing.

3. The group looking at this is doing citizen science. They need to know the above in order to decide how much to involve public because this is something where if the above is known, then the public can participate with DSLR cameras and record light curves suitable for astronometric analysis.

[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ok7hJ_2DPhM&ab_channel=IOTAA...

It appears that astronomers are already preparing for the upcoming occultation of 319 Leona with Betelgeuse.

Researchers in this July 2023 presentation note:

> Leona’s Long Rotation Period (430h) complicates determination of its size and shape.

> So it is VERY IMPORTANT that some OTHER occultations by Leona be observed from multiple stations BEFORE December 12, to take best advantage of this unique opportunity.

[0] https://occultations.org/publications/rasc/2023/2023Dec12Leo...

And there is already at least one other set of observations reported on arXiv from a September 2023 occultation:

> The stellar occultation by (319) Leona on 13 September 2023 in preparation for the occultation of Betelgeuse

> This represents an extraordinary and unique opportunity to analyze the diameter and brightness distribution of Betelgeuse's photosphere with extreme angular resolution by studying the light curve as the asteroid occults the star from different points on Earth and at different wavelengths. Here we present observations of another occultation by Leona on 13 September 2023 to determine its projected shape and size in preparation for the December 12th event.

[1] https://arxiv.org/abs/2309.12272

(Amazing that it was posted ~8 days after the observations were made!)

One aspect of the problem in talking about "cancer" is that we're talking about a large collection of diseases, not a singular disease or phenomenon:

> cancer is actually an umbrella term for scores of different diseases—each with its own unique characteristics and, often, unique treatment needs

https://www.cancercenter.com/community/blog/2023/10/cancer-i...

So every time I read a headline about a new cancer treatment, I think of it as chipping away at one small rock in a giant field of rocks that we're trying to turn into dust. The university "public affairs" (PR) department may talk about about that small rock as if it were all rocks or all one big rock, and as if the chip was a giant blow. PR people talk like that because their job isn't to convey truth; the PR job is to generate news buzz for the university. So unless you have the time and energy to read those papers, it's best to ignore what the PR people say and just to imagine that picture.

The visualization of "Weekly most torrented films in 2023" was useful and fascinating. It was a little fast: I had to keep pausing as it reminded me of a few films I've been meaning to watch but missed.

Appreciate the tip. I already have SingleFile installed on my desktop Firefox, however it is currently only compatible with Firefox for Android Nightly, not vanilla Firefox mobile:

https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2020/09/29/expanded-extensio...

So I'm eager for the update to the vanilla experience. It will probably be one of the first of the expanded set of extensions that I'll install.

One of the missing features which keeps me using Chrome on Android is Firefox's inability to simply download a copy of a page's HTML. Mozilla engineers removed that feature because they didn't want the interface to be "too cluttered". (Yes, sometimes I can print a PDF, however for many sites that results in something unreadable.) Hoping that there will be an extension to re-enable downloading of HTML or full pages.

> The case remains under investigation, but it appears that someone became infected with the dengue virus, returned home and was bitten by a mosquito that passed it on to the local resident, according to Pasadena health officials.

https://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory/california-officials...

It seems part of the common pattern for outbreaks of dengue viral infections in other urban centres. However California lacks a non-human primate reservoir would probably limit the risk of it becoming endemic.

One element of the plan is to excise that responsibility from the journals, splitting the roles of peer review editor and curation editor. A peer review editor would work as part of an arXiv / bioRxiv / medRxiv / eLife type platform where submission and peer review would take place. Journals would then exist either as curated collections or as an overlay journal.

cf: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overlay_journal

> I've seen a lot of sentiment from people that they see more bots, hate speech, and irrelevant content on their timelines. Maybe what I'm hearing is just anecdotal evidence or stories in a bubble?

1. Note that they do not unambiguously define bots; it's "bots and content scrapers" lumped together:

> Blocked bots and content scrapers at a rate +37% greater than 2022. On average, we prevent more than 1M bots signup attacks each day and we’ve reduced DM spam by 95%.

2. I suspect it's a matter of signal-to-noise. Yes, the absolute bot count could be down, but how does it compare to the number of humans using X/Twitter and the volume of content which they are contributing each day? I've tried to find reliable statistics on this, but to no avail. My anecdotal experience is that fewer people I've followed are still regularly using X/Twitter since the Musk acquisition. Some are over at Post.News, some at Threads, some have shifted to Mastodon. It's a very fragmented experience now.

98% and 6 perfect cuts. I blame sibling rivalry.

It would be interesting to see how the ability correlates with social behaviour. Having one or more siblings and the need to share pie, cake, or vlaai probably creates a modest selective pressure.

There's an incentive for scholarly publishers and authors to have their works cited on Wikipedia, since there is a belief (supported by some research [0]) that citation on Wikipedia increases subsequent scholarly citations to those articles. Such a benefit could be used to increase a Journal Impact Factor & similar metrics [1,2] or the citations to one's own works, which is beneficial to academics competing for promotion, tenure, and research grants which are partially based on citation metrics.[3] I wouldn't be surprised if there was some indiscriminate citation on Wikipedia to bolster the metrics.

[0] https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2022/11/01/guest-post-wi...

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impact_factor

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citation_impact

[3] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6668985/

The above commenter's wording was inaccurate. The order applies for all Canadians.

The confusion comes from the finding that Clearview AI violated provincial privacy legislation (BC,AB,ON,QC) as well as federal privacy legislation (PIPEDA). There is a very lengthy report by the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada, resulting from a joint federal-provincial investigation, regarding the operations of Clearview AI and articulating how it was violating Canadian law:

https://www.priv.gc.ca/en/opc-actions-and-decisions/investig...

23andMe shows up to 1500 DNA Relatives for each user (outside of subscription features).

What we know thus far is that the malicious persons who compiled these datasets are scraping user profiles of DNA Relative matches who are related to the accounts which they were able to directly compromise (likely as a result of password reuse). The posters claim to have accessed around ~7M profiles, which means the lower limit for directly compromised accounts is ~4700, although likely much higher (maybe a factor of 10?), given the overlap in match lists, and provided that their boasts are true. So that's potentially ~5000-50000 profiles.

For those directly compromised accounts raw data could be downloaded. For profiles scraped, it would not be feasible to obtain raw data. However it is possible that partial genetic sequences might be assembled for matches. This was at the core of security researchers' investigations into GEDmatch a few years ago [0]. 23andMe does not face the same vulnerability, however with enough compromised accounts it is likely possible to infer a modest proportion of the DNA sequences of profiles which are known to match.

[0] https://www.washington.edu/news/2019/10/29/genetic-genealogy...

Lots of scientists I've known tend to avoid radioisotopes, given either the inherent risks or the perceived risks. University bureaucracies can also create disincentives and barriers, even when the related procedures well known. The paper's paywalled for me, but I'd be interested to know what approach they took to generating the positrons and the beams.

This seems to be more a consequence of being FDA regulated. Promethease is just providing a lookup service, cross-referencing a genotype file with SNPedia, which offers no direct prediction claims IIRC.

https://www.snpedia.com/

> 23andMe blamed the incident on its customers for reusing passwords, and an opt-in feature called DNA Relatives, which allows users to see the data of other opted-in users whose genetic data matches theirs. If a user had this feature turned on, in theory it would allow hackers to scrape data on more than one user by breaking into a single user’s account.

23andMe's blame is an obfuscation of the problems which underlie this situation.

1. There is the matter of having insufficient granularity in their sharing options within the DNA Relatives program. It comes with two general levels, which is not enough.

2. 23andMe limits one to seeing the closest 1500 matches who have opted-in to DNA Relatives. That would have allowed a hacker to collect data on most people in the database despite having only a few thousand compromised accounts. (Haplogroups, ethnic origins predictions, names, profile data, a list of relatives, and information on geographic origins.)

3. The 1500 match limit would be helpful, in theory, however for some time (recently) it was possible to see profiles beyond those 1500 matches. I'm not certain if these were limited to only those who shared matching DNA segments but who fell outside of the 1500 match limit. And I can't be certain if this was part of the method exploited by these malicious actors.

Not surprising to see F₂⁺ & HF⁺ being observed; as a chemist it's what I would expect from a LiF system being bombarded with positrons. Really I'm surprised that it hasn't been tried before! Although that probably is on account of positron beams not being a tool available in any department I've known.

I take it that this is undergirded by the recent Google "privacy policy" announcement which indicated it claims a right to "scrape everything you post online for AI":

https://gizmodo.com/google-says-itll-scrape-everything-you-p...

Better to post a link to the paper on arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/1204.0162

Note also that the Fermat's Library copy is version 1 of the paper; it was subsequently updated and version 2 is available on arXiv.