Ah, confused the two. The worse looking version (PS1, PC) is less book accurate, and the newer version (PS2) is more book accurate. Oh well.. Maybe I'll get the newer version then for my kids.
squaresinger
Vetting sources is the one thing we need journalists for. If they don't vet their sources, their work is without merit.
Reading at least the methodology section of a paper and googling if the researchers and the institute exists, is the bare minimum of what a decent journalist should do.
If they can't do that, then there's no advantage of a journalist over some random person posting on Facebook. Even Youtubers usually vet their sources better.
This. Here's a comparable case where human journalists did exactly what LLMs are doing now: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Bohannon#Intentionally_misleading_chocolate_study
The difference is the scale.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Bohannon#Intentionally_misleading_chocolate_study
Yes, people would exactly do the same, because nobody reads anything but the headline of a paper. Even journalists don't.
AI didn't invent the problem, but it put the problem on steroids.
I think I caught an RSV virus from you.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Bohannon#Intentionally_misleading_chocolate_study
We did the same before AI. AI is once again just putting an old problem on steroids.
Yeah, there's like two projects that use Haskell. Doesn't change the fact that it's the language that most people know and will never write anything productive in it.
Fashion really does go in cycles.
This here.
When I got into programming I figured it would be mostly linear technological progression. Every once in a while something new gets invented that's better than the last iteration, so we discard the last option (except for legacy stuff) and everyone moves to the better thing.
But since then everything that was cool back then became uncool and cool again at least once.
I like the SQL/No-SQL cycle. SQL is powerful, but it's also slow and clunky and if you do it badly it gets really slow. So we invented No-SQL DBs. They are fast, lightweight, but also barebones and limited. So we add functionality here and there, and before we know it we have another variant of SQL with a different syntax. So we head back to use real SQL. But then we realize it's slow and clunky and if you do it badly it gets really slow. So we invent a new No-SQL DB and the cycle continues.
Why do programs written in Haskell not have side effects?
To have side effects someone would have to run the programs.
Yeah, I'd say having a study participant trying to commit suicide because of the birth control is kinda severe.
But also look at who cancelled the study. Was it the participants? Was it the potential customers? Or was it a company that was afraid of lawsuits?
I don't like you trying to blame "the men" because some suits pulled the plug because they feared losing money.
The thing with the vasalgel/RISUG thing is that there aren't any reported side effects and it still was cancelled.
If you look at actual research, there's actually quite a demand for novel male contraception methods:
The proportion of male participants in clinical trials reporting willingness to use a male contraceptive ranged from 34% to 82% and the proportion from surveys about hypothetical methods ranged from 14% to 83% [2]. Specific to the United States (US), a population survey conducted in 2002 of 1500 men reported willingness among 49.3% of respondents [6]; two decades later, an online survey of 2066 men from the US and Canada reported willingness among 75% of respondents
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S001078242400101X
I honestly don't see the difference between regular yellow paint, orange sparkles or highlights.
Sparkling loot is something that was common even back in the 90s and likely before that.
If it helps, you can imagine that yellow paint isn't there in-universe but only for the player, just like sparkling loot or highlighted interactive elements.
I like that this is posted on a site called commondreams