Imagine just replacing each of your organs when they die and eventually you just go full Tin Man.

This is the primary mechanism, though the benefit for this system is that it makes cancer much less likely. A potential cancer cell must activate its telomerase production or the tumor will die once its cells have divided more than they are supposed to.

Just need to figure out how to turn on and off cancer mode in cells.

You ever notice how the title is designed to create as much argument as possible while still being technically correct? I hate what science journalism has turned into.

Here is the paragraph describing the results of the study:

>Results There were approximately 1.65 million doses of BNT162b2 administered and 77 reports of myocarditis or pericarditis among those aged 12 to 17 years, which met the inclusion criteria during the study period. Of the 77 adolescents (mean [SD] age, 15.0 [1.7] years; 63 male individuals [81.8%]), 51 (66.2%) developed myocarditis or pericarditis after dose 2 of BNT162b2. Overall, 74 individuals (96.1%) with an event were assessed in the emergency department, and 34 (44.2%) were hospitalized (median [IQR] length of stay, 1 [1-2] day). The majority of adolescents (57 [74.0%]) were treated with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs only, and 11 (14.3%) required no treatment. The highest reported incidence was observed among male adolescents aged 16 to 17 years after dose 2 (15.7 per 100 000; 95% CI, 9.7-23.9). Among those aged 16 to 17 years, the reporting rate was highest in those with a short (ie, ≤30 days) interdose interval (21.3 per 100 000; 95% CI, 11.0-37.2).

In theory, an AI confidant would be good.

DO NOT USE CHATGPT FOR THIS.

ChatGPT is very good at looking sensible and intelligent until you start pushing the boundaries of its existing knowledge and realize that it has less actual comprehension of the real world than a toddler, and zero recognition of its own limitations except for cases where its designers have specifically trained it not to answer.

If you give it half a chance, it will confidently spout bullshit and do it in a way that makes you think it knows what it is talking about, until you happen to ask it about something you already know and realize just how little it knows and how much it pretends to.

ChatGPT is a tool for generating text that sounds good, and can help with creative writing. It is good at sounding intelligent and articulate. The actual content is not intelligent, except when copied from a human source (and it cannot tell the difference between something it read and something it made up). It is NOT human. Do not treat it as though it is.

If there's anything we learned from this pandemic, it's that in a world where any single event can be turned into a news article and played up to manipulate emotions, constantly thinking in terms of numbers is absolutely vital for determining the difference between fact and fiction.

• In mice.

Which also have sex differences in body fat deposits, but that's quite a leap in logic.

The big change is that it can "fill in the gaps" that are necessary to get a good idea off the ground. If I make a good product, instead of having to find investors and blow a bunch of money on artists for an ad campaign I can now spend a few seconds having an AI write a sales pitch and make an eye-catching poster. The actual substance still needs to be good though.

Prey does not boop snoots. Therefore if you boop snoot you are not prey.

Sci-fi tradition messed up a lot of the public's understanding of what AI even is. People think of them as being like more advanced calculators - which are, for what they do, basically precise and infallable. Therefore once they can talk like people, people expect them to still be precise and infallable.

But real AI is all about tricking calculators into mimicking living brains. Which means that not only do they have all the problems of living brains (negating the precision that computers are good at), it takes a lot more time and energy to even get that far.

Even at its most optimistic projection, any AI is...just some guy. Some guy who doesn't take issue with being enslaved to obsessively focus on whatever task it's designed to optimize, but ultimately MORE fallible than a human, not less.

In fact because ChatGPT is being trained by whether people upvote or downvote its responses, it isn't really learning to be correct - it's learning to respond to people with answers THEY think are correct. It was pre-trained to oppose some of the more problematic ideas (it rejects questions that seem racist for example) but in the end if people try to use it to answer complicated opinionated questions is likely to simply wind up with the same issue as social media - parroting back at people things they want to hear.

The name is a misnomer. It's not actually a study like biology, sociology, psychology, etc. It's more of a religion, like scientology.

NFTs are basically the digital equivalent of owning expensive physical original art pieces. The real value of an art piece is being able to admire it, yet wealthy patrons have always paid enormous sums of money for the privilege of owning "authentic originals", and nobody really cared because talented artists deserve to be paid by someone and who else is going to do it? Now digital artists can do the same.

I don't think NFTs would be as controversial as they are if they didn't have the misfortune of appearing at the same time AI art took off, creating a sudden surge in mediocre art that could be exploited with FOMO mentality. Those fugly apes are pretty much a symbol of all the worst aspects of NFTs, and because NFTs never really got a chance to show their positive side before they were turned into a pyramid scheme they wound up despised.

The technology won't be stained forever though - once people finally figure out how to handle AI art I expect they will become normalized and be a source of income for good digital artists. But it may take a while for them to shake off that stigma.

The scientists are trying to find solutions for Covid. The reporters presenting a preliminary in-vitro study as a potential treatment using a headline that they absolutely know will stir up anti-vaxxer conspiracy theorists, because it will get them more attention (very similar to the whole Ivermectin debacle), is irresponsible.

In Jewish law it is considered a form of theft - since it takes the form of a "transaction" in which both parties intend to win, the winner is taking money from the loser that the loser did not intend to give up.

There are ways of getting around this. The most common is that the player is paying for entertainment (so even if they lose they still got what they payed for, and no theft took place). This is only valid if the player sets aside at the beginning a particular amount of money they expect to lose and are willing to lose for the sake of entertainment, and do not spend any more than that.

You may notice that this loophole only really prevents the other party from being guilty of stealing if they win. Because of this it can only really be used among groups of friends where it is clear that everyone is following these rules, and casinos where it is assumed that the casino has already calculated how much they expect to "lose" and does not consider this loss "theft" in the case where a player wins.

I'm not sure how Christians see it.

One possibility is that Newton's "indigo" was what we call blue, and his "blue" was what we call cyan.

Although the Fujita scale is theoretically based on wind speed, the actual tornadoes themselves are rated based on the damage they cause, since people rarely manage to get proper measuring equipment inside a tornado.

The scale was actually changed in 2007 to account for more complex variables, and it is believed that the earlier scale may have frequently overestimated the wind speed of tornados.

A strong immune system does tend to multiply the effectiveness of a vaccine though, not just add extra resistance on top of it, because vaccination works though the immune system.

A strong immune system is like having fit and healthy soldiers, while a vaccine is giving them experience and knowledge in fighting a particular enemy. Either one is better than neither, but if you've got both they build off each other.

You can see this in practice by comparing vaccinated and unvaccinated relative illness percentages in different age groups; vaccination reduces infection and illness in all age groups, but the efficacy is higher in younger people. Which seems unfair since they generally need it less, but that's just the way it works.

Semen is made of both sperm and sperm food