I guess if I am nit-picking, it’s very hard for a statistician to claim anything as having a zero possibility… of course a statement like that helps no one. These are my actual thoughts:

non-zero possibility

It is technically possible that Musk’s gesture was not a Nazi salute but rather something that looks similar. Fun fact, this is something that happened with S. Korea’s Megalian hand gesture issue (for example see this case: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cx2621gzvkdo), where ppl found the gesture in a lot of unexpected places. However, the Megalian gesture is a pretty common hand movement, whereas the Nazi salute… I mean I guess it could happen due to a really bad out-of-context dance choreography?? But that clearly wasn’t Musk’s case

“But I am just wondering if everyone else sees this that way with no room for it being a result of autism and definitely that.”

… I mean maybe?? I have weird Autistic intrusive thoughts sometimes but even then this is a bit… Honestly though, I don’t know if I should put any respect to someone who willingly know what a Nazi salute is, and then choose to do it in front of one of the most important political events in the world, twice in a row nontheless. I find it hard to believe such an act to be a faux pass and non-intentional. Heck even if it is completely unintentional, this would be ground for job termination and put on a blacklist for life for most job positions I know

“Is this where we are? I feel more scared to be in America now.”

Yeah I know… I seriously wonder why I am still in the US as well.

Well the bigger question is, would you buy it? ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

Jokes aside… Not attractive enough. Even if I’m attractive, OF creators are quite competitive as it’s kind of a “winner takes all” market. So probably not worth it… Besides, for conventionally attractive people shouldn’t there be easier ways to make money off looks? For example landing a modeling gig that has a more steady pay or something like that

Unfortunately… Isn’t there a saying like “the amount of effort to refute bullshit is much large than the amount needed to produce it” or something? So sadly the HCQ thing is just going to stay there for now; the journal taking 4.5 years to retract it didn’t help either

My main social media app is Mastodon (technically Firefish which I will soon migrate to Iceshrimp… but those details are less relevant)

I consider Lemmy less so of a “social media” and more of a link aggregator/discussion forum… but yeah otherwise I try to use Lemmy a bit too. I still browse Reddit quite a lot, but only for individual communities that don’t have equivalents on Lemmy, and I no longer post there

I never used much social media to begin with tbh… I feel pretty decent about the Fediverse. Despite all the drawbacks (blocklists, fedi drama, etc), I think people collectively managed to make an objectively better social media platforms compared to the previous corporation-dominated ones (at least by my personal metrics)

Well neuroscience isn’t a very old field… More seriously though, I think biomedical scientists know surprisingly little about something if NIH doesn’t fund it… aaand that’s how we understood so little about our own household companions (and a bit too much about cancer. Seriously why do we know so many weird things about cancer much of those don’t even translate into therapeutics)

I… think this question is a bit more complicated for this community. Following are only my personal opinion

Prescribed medication? I think so, I’d rather be physically and mentally healthy rather than have the other alternative. And usually medication (even ones with noted negative effects) are meant do do more good than harm so…

Recreational drugs… the line between this and the above is surprisingly not as clear-cut as it seems. I believe there are active lines of study of using various psychedelic compounds to treat mental disorders or other conditions… Personally I would take medically prescribed psychedelics if I am 1) under medical supervision and 2) based on evidence it would help my mental health (maybe that’s the answer to the question?)

Hard drugs: I don’t see how they can make anyone a better person, and no

I clearly didn’t drink enough coffee for this before posting

My bad, the original news article did a good job at explaining the missing link… I misunderstood what you were asking

• C-section babies seem to have more immune system-related diseases (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaci.2015.07.040), so scientists think they would benefit from special treatment
• Scientists tried to fix this by giving the babies vagina-derived bacteria (https://doi.org/10.1038/nm.4039); couldn’t find any more reports on this but it seems like these don’t work super well?
• This is a proof-of-concept by the lab highlighted in the news (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2020.08.047), they tried using fecal matter and it worked
• The abstract featured in the news is now a clinical trial that is in progress

I think that’s pretty much it

This is the study they were referring to: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaci.2015.07.040

C-section babies have slightly higher risks of several diseases related to immune system function, and the hypothesis is that it is because these babies have slightly less developed immune systems

I happen to know a few folks who work in this field (detecting fraudulent scientific papers). This is a bit of an insider knowledge, but there are science sleuths who are fearing for their lives… there might be some seriously shady stuff going on behind research paper mills, but I don’t know who will be the one digging those up.

If it is just on an individual level though methinks Retraction Watch does a decently good job at informing what might or might not be trustworthy

A recent report on Retraction Watch, a PhD student was trying to figure out who’s behind a papermill: https://retractionwatch.com/2024/10/01/hidden-hydras-uncovering-the-massive-footprint-of-one-paper-mills-operations/

This is from Nature News today: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-03427-w. Heard a bit about this startup even before so…

This again??

This time once archive.org is back online again… is it possible to get torrents of some of their popular data storage? For example I wouldn’t imagine their catalog of books with expired copyright to be very big. Would love a community way to keep the data alive if something even worse happens in the future (and their track record isn’t looking good now)

Pretty sure the “intimate detail” is just the editor being horny… I didn’t make the title don’t blame me

Hehe

Blame the Nature News editor for this, the paper title wasn’t horny at all

I got curious and wanted to see what method they are using: I believe they are using data from this portal? https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/selectatest.html

Looks like anyone can take this! But I guess that also means… did the dyslexics/dyscalculics self-select themselves?

Edit: took one. There is a demographics questionnaire where you can list whether you have disabilities, dyslexia is in there (but not Autism??)… So it is self-selected. And on unrelated note, I am apparently in the 1% that has a strong automatic preference for physically disabled rather than not-disabled people (facepalm

This is a good point… I’m more used to biomedical papers where this author list would be considered typical or even short, but yeah the affiliations seem to state that there are four PIs on this paper which is wild… don’t know what to make of it. If someone knows archaeology better plz inform

I genuinely don’t know… there doesn’t seem to be any ongoing discussion of who or why are these people targeting IA. There are other people who are trying to rescue data stored on IA

Hope this would be over soon…

So it was the physics Nobel… I see why the Nature News coverage called it “scooped” by machine learning pioneers

Since the news tried to be sensational about it… I tried to see what Hinton meant by fearing the consequences. Believe he is genuinely trying to prevent AI development without proper regulations. This is a policy paper he was involved in (https://managing-ai-risks.com/). This one did mention some genuine concerns. Quoting them:

“AI systems threaten to amplify social injustice, erode social stability, and weaken our shared understanding of reality that is foundational to society. They could also enable large-scale criminal or terrorist activities. Especially in the hands of a few powerful actors, AI could cement or exacerbate global inequities, or facilitate automated warfare, customized mass manipulation, and pervasive surveillance”

like bruh people already lost jobs because of ChatGPT, which can’t even do math properly on its own…

Also quite some irony that the preprint has the following quote: “Climate change has taken decades to be acknowledged and confronted; for AI, decades could be too long.”, considering that a serious risk of AI development is climate impacts

A bit off topic… But from my understanding, the US currently doesn’t have a single federal agency that is responsible for AI regulation… However, there is an agency for child abuse protection: the National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect within Department of HHS

If AI girlfriends generating CSAM is how we get AI regulation in the US, I’d be equally surprised and appalled

Based on my understanding of how these things work: Yes, probably no, and probably no… I think the map is just a “catalogue” of what things are, not at the point where we can do fancy models on it

This is their GitHub account, anyone knowledgeable enough about research software engineering is welcomed to give it a try

There are a few neuroscientists who are trying to decipher biological neural connections using principles from deep learning (a.k.a. AI/ML), don’t think this is a popular subfield though. Andreas Tolias is the first one that comes to my mind, he and a bunch of folks from Columbia/Baylor were in a consortium when I started my PhD… not sure if that consortium is still going. His lab website (SSL cert expired bruh). They might solve the second two statements you raised… no idea when though.

Thanks! I think this is it… because I guess the more important part to this trope is that “hehe this is actually the world that you - dear viewer - lives in”… the high-fantasy part is secondary and depends on the genre I guess.

I… agree. Did get a lot of great recommendations tho!