I can't imagine what it was like for her to face the same diagnosis that took her father, only to have such a different outcome. The part about the drug becoming available a month before her diagnosis gave me chills...
This might not even be a bug in the traditional sense. Someone probably decided that switching apps should also switch what's shown on the external display
That last point is probably the hardest one to actually follow. When someone you love is sick, I imagine it's easy to turn every waking hour into researching treatments, chasing appointments and etc. It probably feels like doing anything less means giving up
I can understand a buggy device flooding the network. What's harder to justify is why a coffee maker needs to know anything about the other devices in your house in the first place
Somewhere there's an engineer who added Wi-Fi to a coffee maker because marketing wanted an app, and now a family is debugging network saturation caused by their breakfast routine
The keyboard layout issue sounds nastier than the reconnect bug to me. Input forwarding gets surprisingly weird once keycodes, layouts, modifiers and the target OS's interpretation all get involved
That's an interesting wrinkle. If anything, externally funded international students seem like exactly the case where you'd still want the interview, since the funding answers "who pays for this?" but not "does this person have the background and understanding to do the work?"
The tricky part is that live review is much more expensive than async review. But maybe that just means we were getting away with a cheap proxy because it happened to work reasonably well.
The key shift seems to be from "can you produce mathematics?" to "do you understand mathematics?"... Those used to be correlated strongly enough that a thesis or paper could serve as evidence of both. If AI breaks that correlation, evaluating people through defenses, discussion and live problem solving suddenly makes a lot more sense.
The first rule reduces platform power. The second potentially requires platforms to build even larger classification and moderation systems. I'm very much in favor of the first, but I don't think they belong under the same conceptual umbrella.
And the incentives are arguably worse than QA: you get little credit if the result replicates, and potentially a lot of grief if it doesn't. Novel results build careers. Checking them mostly doesn't
I'd be pretty wary of stretching wire fraud law to cover this. Prosecutors deciding whether scientific results are fraudulent sounds like it could create its own set of ugly incentives
At this point the surprising part isn't that another Ariely result has problems, it's that some of these datasets apparently went decades without this kind of basic scrutiny
I'm really sorry for your loss. There's not much to say to something like that except that I hope this treatment came too late for fewer people than it did for your sister
If molecular glues keep working like this, I wonder how many other "undruggable" targets are really just targets we've been trying to attack in the wrong way
Pancreatic cancer is one of those diseases where I've gotten used to reading depressing numbers, so seeing 13.2 months vs 6.7 months actually made me stop for a second
I mostly agree but I think the bar for the software still has to be unusually high when the failure mode is "you are not allowed to enter the country you legally live in"... The human fallback is essential, but it shouldn't become the thing that makes a fundamentally unreliable system acceptable
"Known issue" and "you may not board the flight home" really shouldn't appear in the same system. If a database error can effectively invalidate your legal status at the border, there needs to be a fallback that doesn't involve spending hours on the phone