resoluteteeth

Rolled oats according to the paper

I like ChromeOS but really having two different operating systems is a liability.

Despite all the effort they've put into it, chromeOS is worse at running Android apps than android tablets except for support for having them in resizable windows.

All they need to do is improve the support for a laptop mode on android and make chrome on android in the laptop mode equivalent to chrome on ChromeOS and they can kill ChromeOS entirely.

It makes no sense to have to choose between two operating systems

You should be able to get a fully compatible android like experience in tablet mode and a chromebook like experience in laptop mode all in one os

And the ChromeOS like experience should be available on any android tablet if you use it with a keyboard

Suppose that we were able to develop a drug that would allow people to regrow lost limbs through gene editing.

Do you think that such a drug should not be given to anyone who lost a limb due in an accident that was partly due to their own poor judgement because it was "down to choices made"?

Also, is there something special about gene editing that means it should not be used for these situations? Or if you go outside when it's icy and fall and break a bone, should the hospital refuse to treat you since that was your own fault?

> This doesn't happen with any other animal

That's really not true at all. For example, rabbits love sweet stuff like fruit and will readily kill themselves by eating too much, which causes their delicate hindgut fermenter digestive system to shut down.

Like humans, they simply aren't adapted to conditions where they have unlimited sugary food like fruit, so they will eat too much when given the opportunity.

> Which are crafted by individuals with strong financial ties to the meat, dairy, or egg industries, thus should be disregarded by any reasonable person.

The RFK jr version of the food pyramid now moves meat and dairy to the biggest section of the pyramid

It's not really different than losing weight by any other method in that respect.

There is always the risk of regaining weight unless you continue to do whatever caused you to lose weight (e.g. restricting calories) to some extent.

I guess a "cure" would be good but since we don't have one having to periodically go back on glp drugs if you gain weight is no different from periodically having to go on a diet if you gain weight.

On the other hand most people tend to naturally gain weight pretty slowly (e.g. a pound a year) so having to go on glp drugs for a period every few years wouldn't even be that bad, especially if they're available in pill form.

A better comparison would be saying that we shouldn't have seat belts because people should be driving more carefully in the first place.

They don't work by reducing appetite, causing people to eat less? What mechanism do you think they work by then?

IIRC plaque is mineralized by saliva in the same way as tooth enamel, so something that changes saliva in a way that prevents tartar from forming might be reducing the amount of calcium in your saliva in a way that could potentially ultimately not be good for your teeth.

The thing is, even people who are obese and gaining weight over time are usually just eating a tiny calorie surplus each day.

If people take GLP-1 meds and get down into the normal range, at that point even if they stay on the drugs, they're going to have to adjust the dose so they stop losing weight again (without gaining weight).

This means that even if everyone who's overweight or obese started taking GLP-1 drugs and started losing weight right now, the reduction in food consumption would still be limited and short term.

So I think this concern is somewhat overblown.

> If a machine can do this assignment perfectly, why are you giving it to this student?

By that logic now that text to speech has gotten quite good we should stop teaching kids to read.

> My life experience also mimics this. In college I thought I had crippling social anxiety. Turns out I just needed to be around people more to develop my abilities.

I don't understand why you think that the fact that exposure cured you means you didn't have social anxiety?

Exposure is something a therapist would suggest for social anxiety.

The issue seems to be that you think saying that someone has social anxiety means they are permanently broken (and maybe will give up trying to do anything about it?) but I'm not really sure where you got that idea from.

Do you really mean OCD? Or do you mean OCPD? I wouldn't think that OCD would be similar to PDA.

Even if you don't think it has validity as a single disorder, autism is at least diagnosed in a way that's fairly consistent between clinicians using ADOS.

I'm more dubious of clinicians who like to pick random dubious rare disorders that people can't even agree about the basic description of like schizoid out of the DSM like the author of this article.

Look elsewhere in this thread. Apple airpods pro apparently have such a feature.

A lot of older small towns are good but newer stuff tends to be built along highways with no other connecting roads, and more spread out

Also, a lot of the "rural" population in census data is actually living in outer suburbs and newer suburbs tend to be pretty unsafe for kids to walk/bike around

How does that distinction matter here?

This. When he has to specifically tell people "it's not a bubble" that is not at all a good sign in my opinion.

Even if they know they would lose in court, lawsuits are expensive enough that threatening to sue or filing a lawsuit is often enough to get people without deep pockets to do whatever you want.

I don't know if that was the reasoning in this case though, considering that they didn't drop the lawsuit once it was clear that the youtuber wasn't going to give in to their demands.

One thing that's interesting to me is that a lot of the ai-generated images shown in the screenshot of the stock image site seem like they are emulating the style of national geographic photographer Steve McCurry who has had some controversy due to editing his images and also allegedly has staged images (which is something that you aren't supposed to do for documentary photography), and also I think has been criticized as feeding into stereotypes about different places.

So it's like there is a certain genre of photograph that is what people have come to associate with poverty in developing countries that may not be realistic in the first place, and then as an additional level of detachment from reality, ai is then reproducing the conventions of that genre without even involving real people or places.

There are some books that you can't view in the web version but I'm not sure if that's always been the case or if those books are in a different format or publishers can disable it for extra security or something.

I don't think teenagers generally had smartphones until much later

Facebook was also quite different back then and it was still something that people mainly used to find people who were in their classes

If it was smartphones plus modern social media I would expect the trend to start at least 5 years later

On the other hand teens already had dumbphones for texting and Myspace before that

I disagree. There is no way to interpret "GPT-5 just found solutions to 10 (!) previously unsolved Erdos problems" as saying something other than GPT-5 having solved them.

If it just found existing solutions then they obviously weren't "previously unsolved" so the tweet is wrong.

He clearly misunderstood the situation and jumped to the conclusion that GPT-5 had actually solved the problems because that's what he wanted to believe.

That said, the misunderstanding is understandable because the tweet he was responding to said they had been listed as "open", but solving unsolved erdos problems by itself would be such a big deal that he probably should have double checked it.

The paper explains what it actually means, so it's not nonsense. See my other comment https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45558941 it's the area under the curve for the receiver-operating characteristic curve and 94% is extremely good.

OK, I looked at the actual paper, and what 94% actually is is the 0.94 area under the curve for the receiver-operating characteristic curve (the plot of the true positive rate (TPR) against the false positive rate (FPR) at each threshold setting) not the accuracy for a specific binary result (e.g. at a specific arbitrary threshold).

See https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S155608641...

> In general, an AUC of 0.5 suggests no discrimination (i.e., ability to diagnose patients with and without the disease or condition based on the test), 0.7 to 0.8 is considered acceptable, 0.8 to 0.9 is considered excellent, and more than 0.9 is considered outstanding

So .94 is actually extremely good.

If you read the actual link I don't think they're saying that using it as a covid test with some specific threshold of microclots has a 94% accuracy but just that the raw microclot count has a 94% accuracy.

The title on hn which implies that seems to be inaccurate and it's not the original title of the article.

I don't think there's any specific reason for people to want the reason to be tylenol specifically, but RFK had announced that he was going to solve autism by September and it seems like he really just wanted to come up with an explanation for autism that blames it on some sort of medicine that people can simply choose not to use. Tylenol is something that people have considered as a possible cause of autism, although the best/biggest study seems to have pretty clearly proven that use of tylenol doesn't actually cause autism, so it's a fairly obvious thing to pull out if you just want to come up with some medicine to blame for autism.

Perhaps the better question is why he isn't blaming vaccines, which is what many people expected him to do, but maybe there was too much pushback from the rest of the administration on that.

It feels like there is a lot of missing information in this article. However there is a bit more information in this previous one: https://woodfromeden.substack.com/p/the-anti-autism-manifest...

According to that article, the author's daughter was diagnosed with autism but the author has decided it is actually schizoid personality disorder.

Her daughter is and has been receiving psychiatric treatment but for some reason it seems like it is really important to her that her daughter be labelled as having a personality disorder or "mad" rather than having some other type of mental or developmental disorder, and it seems like she feels like her daughter is getting the wrong treatment because of this. (I'm not sure I completely understand why she thinks this would make that much of a difference.)

Her daughter apparently wants to do things like spend all day cooking and then throwing the food away and the author feels like this makes her "delusional" for not accepting that this is not something that will prepare her for her future.

Curiously, in the current article the author says that her daughter "almost completely lacks any theory of mind" which seems a bit odd to me because that is something that is usually seen as a hallmark of autism specifically.

In general, I'm having a bit of trouble understanding why the author is coming to the conclusion that the specific problem here is mental health professionals "deny[ing] the existence of high-functioning madness". It's an unfortunate situation though.

> That is a lot, or about as much intraindividual variance (when dividing the mean by the standard deviation) as something like IQ.

Isn't iq an arbitrary scale? Does this make sense?

> The number crunching culminates in 75, which is not a multiple of 10. So this cannot be my real credit card number; I must have mistyped it.