I understand that point, I don't understand why white babies are doing better with white doctors: "the study did see a survival benefit with racial concordance between physician and patient, however it was only with white infants and physicians".
“A reporter filed a FOIA request for correspondence between authors and reviewers of the article and found that the study did see a survival benefit with racial concordance between physician and patient, however it was only with white infants and physicians. They removed lines in the paper *stating that it does not fit the narrative that they sought to publish with the study.”
How does this fit together with this:
(explanation: white physicians have more training and take care of sicker babies who have worse outcomes)
If white physicians get sicker white babies as well, they should do better on average with black physicians as well, no? Or did they account for birth weight?
My main gripe with current day models is their lack of consistency. On the one hand, they can do very impressive things that save me hours of work, on the other, they can fuck things up in simple ways and it costs me hours of work to fix it. I was using Claude to program a scene in Godot and the file was showing a parsing error at line 1. I let him try to fix it multiple times, started new chats, etc. Then I just looked at the file, noticed a comment in line 1 starting with # and thought "maybe that's not allowed". I took the comment away and the file was fixed. It's insanely frustrating when the AI fucks up such a simple thing. The main benefit of AI is that you can just let it rip and create something without knowing what you are doing. If I have to check the code all the time for fuckups, it really drags on productivity.
I'm only slightly embarrassed to admit that I based my opinion on this ChatGPT answer:
Quantum mechanics (QM) underpins much of modern technology, especially in semiconductors, computers, and electronics. Here’s how:
- Semiconductors & Transistors Transistors, the building blocks of computers, rely on quantum effects like electron band gaps in semiconductors. Quantum tunneling and electron energy levels determine how silicon chips function, enabling microprocessors and memory storage.
- Lasers & LEDs Lasers work because of stimulated emission, a QM principle where electrons in atoms jump between energy levels. LEDs (light-emitting diodes) rely on QM to convert electrical energy into light efficiently.
- Computers & Microelectronics Quantum mechanics dictates how electrons move in circuits, affecting everything from chip design to data storage (like flash memory). Modern processor fabrication (like Intel’s 7nm and 3nm chips) requires quantum tunneling models to control electron behavior at microscopic scales.
- Magnetic Storage (Hard Drives & MRI) Quantum mechanics enables Giant Magnetoresistance (GMR), a phenomenon used in hard drives to read data from magnetic disks. Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) exploits nuclear spin states, a QM property, to create detailed images of the body.
- Quantum Computing (Future Impact) Unlike classical bits (0 or 1), quantum bits (qubits) use superposition and entanglement to process information in new ways. This could revolutionize fields like cryptography, AI, and simulations for materials science. So, while QM started as abstract math in the early 20th century, it now drives the technology behind modern life.
Who is funding fundamental research into topics like quantum mechanics that don't yield an immediate benefit but is still highly useful for society? The private sector probably wouldn't fund this research because the benefits accrue to a lot of competitors as well. Citizen-scientists can't fund it.
I think we should accept that there are degrees that are primarily conspicuous leisure. Philosophy, literature, history - they are qualitatively different from STEM degrees or BA/Marketing/Accounting/Finance/Law.
I would add all of the Social Sciences to the list. Pretty much all papers I read leave me with the thought "that's nice to know" and not "this will change how we do things and generate all sorts of positive effects in practice". I'd really like to know how many Social Science papers had any large positive impact on any policy. I would guess it's a small minority and if we stopped doing it altogether, almost nothing of practical value would be lost.
Watch the bartender make it. Emie says girls were taught to keep their hand over the top of their drinks at parties.
Always remember girls, put a hand on top of your drinks so nobody smuggles any rape drugs into your rape drugs.
I don't have a strong position on whether the whole thing is a good deal or not. My problem is with the way the article communicates costs by pretending that providing an interest-reduced loan isn't costly in any way. Instead, what I would expect from a supposedly neutral state media outlet is that they present the pros and cons of this policy in a neutral and factual manner.
I wrote a short post about the reactions to 1. the collapse of a bridge in Germany due to poor maintenance and 2. the fact that Germany currently subsidizes the Indian metro. Contrasting the reactions of rightist cavemen on social media and leftist state media, I come to the conclusion that despite the fact that the state media is more accurate on the facts, their skewed politicized interpretation of the facts leaves the cavemen better off not reading the state media. Basically, the cavemen believe that Germany subsidizes the Indian metro to the tune of 100M€ and the state media counters that not a single cent of tax €s was send to India because the money was paid as an interest-reduced loan. I show why this argument is flawed and how we could have used a simple loan scheme to finance the maintenance of our bridges instead of funding the Indian metro, while taking on an equivalent risk exposure.
Currently, computers are better at chess than humans. Still, nobody wants to watch the computer world championship and many people want to watch the human world championship. In some jobs it's not just about being better. Maybe more such jobs will exist in the future?
you can no longer accuse a man of rape if you willingly spend time with him alone
I was with you for the power analysis but this is just unhinged. It's not that hard not to rape a woman, even if you are alone with her and you have a lot of vitality.
That list of people seems pretty based. I must admit, I don't understand the Guardians argument here. Does Lightcone have to pay back the money because they invited bad people or because the money was sent fraudulently? If it's the former: lol, if it's the latter: Why even talk about the bad people for 90% of the article? I mean, imagine they were a pro social justice foundation or whatever. Would this mean that they shouldn't pay back the fraud money?
- Prev
- Next
Not true for games in general. All games currently available are gutter trash, even the (relatively) good ones, even the classics! I can easily imagine a game that is way, way better than anything currently on the market. The only problem is actually coding the thing. There are so many possible improvements based on world reactivity, AI, physics, emergent gameplay, etc. I think, for people in the future, games available today will look like Pong looks to us.
More options
Context Copy link