bordercases

They helped him!

Very good.

You want to leave it all to lawyers?

The real argument is around degrees of reconstruction in image. Cameras never depict light fully faithfully in the analog world.

Your argument doesn't hold: who was the person that uploaded the document? That person is hireable as a spy.

Excellent find. What brought you to it?

RAG?

I would agree with you if that knowledge wasn't the stuff industrial organization was made of. That is expertise many countries currently lack and have experts come in from overseas to deploy.

Did they control for blood sugar or diabetes incidence? (I’ll check)

The link between diabetes and retinopathy is conclusive. Between diabetes and dementia or Alzheimer’s, prospective.

Contrarians arguing the possibility without evidence yet cited to back it up is not a definitive conclusion, let alone informed.

The windows of opportunity would have been narrow to definitively target microplastics as the cause of many diseases where observations of the potential mechanism of action for a morbidity - in this case, probably inflammation or endocrine disruption - could also be caused by other factors which are easier to measure.

This is because plastics became common when a lot of other industrial practices and materials became common in the environment, many of which we know contribute to diseases of modernity.

Microplastic pollution is likely easily confused with other forms of pollutants that were easier to detect historically, and thus care way more about. This would include lead poisoning or carbon monoxide or other chemicals that mimic hormones in the endocrine system.

So why isn't this an argument for disregarding microplastics as being marginal? Because there are microplastics on the larger end which exhibit effects on the endocrine system more definitively than smaller plastics, and these results are easier to report because these plastics are easier to observe.

But with the presence of smaller plastics everywhere, which we would have to know because larger plastics always break down into smaller ones over time, to both understand that they are a common water pollutant yet also observe them in biological tissue requires more precise modalities than historically have been available when microplastic pollution could have started.

It's possible that it might be only "larger" microplastics that have an effect on health, and smaller ones end up being flushed out before they have an effect, or end up not mimicking any hormone and just end up being an chronic inflammatory like pollen would be to those allergic to it.

But that cutoff is quite arbitrary if we rely on just the microplastics that are easy to observe as the only ones that affect our health. A better idea would be to suspect smaller plastics and then gather evidence on their effect on tissues over other pollutants, as the ability to sample them becomes available.

In which case the skew is positive.

If it's counted as an accident rather than a suicide then the numbers are still high.

If it's counted as a suicide rather than an accident then maybe. I would then ask who is lying.

If it's faking deaths then that's the coroner system which you would have to question.

They would be hard to establish if you didn't have data on the kinds of health problems that would only show up post-plastic.

Why only care about the short term?

Willful ignorance? It's not like these studies are uncommon now.

“Market failure”, “Market gap”

They overlap in part because the latter two topics are used to abstract over any mathematics.

There are only sixteen possible maps from Z^2 to Z^2.

As the resevoir of astroturfed marketing that is still a problem for Reddit.

Guix can certainly beat Nix on documentation, with a lot following from that.

To burst your bubble: https://digdeeper.neocities.org/articles/browsers#brave

Did Apple adopt an approach like this more successfully?

I find that anchoring my mathematics to something in the world motivates me more to learn math than math for its own sake. In this case it's quantum computing. Now I love spinors.

These tools really need to support self-hosted model integration. We have LLaMA.

Supposedly a part of correcting an overshoot is possibly finding a hybrid.

I'm assuming that this wasn't a debate but a matter of open minded thinking.

How would you approach thinking about this in a way which makes the lawyers culpable rather than an acceptable part of the status quo?

Are you sure you can't be more specific? Wasn't MIRI studying the math of alignment precisely because one should be more specific about alignment? In your view, were they successful or misguided or what?

You would have to deal with the community's pseudointellectualism long enough to identify it as a pattern. Taken in isolation it looks like nothing, but the arc of the rationalist community has been insularity combined with CYA until a crisis comes along which makes them both more guarded with others while appearing to "update" in public discussion, using such a limited notion of belief because they view their core texts and blog posts as a canonical view of philosophy, and covering up degenerate behavior like sexual abuse on a regular basis. The real rationalists just move on from this crazy making. I've had to decondition myself like an ex-cultist which is why I'm reacting this way and I hope others can see how he behaves problematically too.