Ovah

It's both illegal and unethical clearcutting continuity forrest without said permits. Clearcutting continutity forests is a diservice to society.

At least it's written by a human and not AI slop.

While commonly taught in academic settings, I disagree with the notion that it's possible to self plagiarize. It's your own words and not stealing from somebody else.

You're saying that people shouldn't take a stance "without this basic evidence about the substance of the matter". The basic evidence is there. Take the time to watch Ben's videos, it's an hour of your time well spent.

You are more or less accusing a named individual of severe crimes without much to back it up.

Have you seen the youtube videos? They paint a pretty clear picture.

It's big leap to assume that massage of peripheral lymph vessels (e.g. arms and legs) affect lymph draining in the brain. I'm always a bit perplexed when people's first reaction to new hard science is to assume that it supports more or less pseudoscience. Especially in a forum where hard evidence is the norm and encouraged. Just because some research shares a noun with pseudoscience doesn't mean that X supports Y.

My comment was with NanoPore in mind.

That's a prevalent misconception even in the scientific community. Sure, each read has 1% incorrect bases (0.01). But each segment of DNA is read many times over. More or less 0.01^(many times) ≈ 0 incorrect bases.

Over 90% of diabetes is type 2: it's the classic metabolic disease. Noting down the exact type adds complexity to be honest. The are other forms, such as type 1, MODY or even insipidus and explaining all of them is another topic and they are comparatively rare. It's a bit of a stretch to call out the journalists work ethic as lazy. That said once specifying "type 2" wouldn't hurt but it's not necessary either.

Unfortunately, they recently removed most of the books from that hall due to conservation efforts. I didn't really give the feel or atmosphere of an old library.

I'm very active on iNaturalist. The name suggestions made there by image recognition, at least for the genus I work with, is a complete and utter joke. >98% of name suggestions for that group are incorrect. As soon as a genus becomes diverse, it classifies everything as a single species instead of a genus. It does not have ability to recognize 'the unknown'. Most of my time on that website is wasted on clearing up gross incorrect name suggestions from AI that people accept without any checks of plausibility. Even with species that have >2000 confirmed observations, it still incorrectly suggests the name for obviously completely unrelated species. You didn't take the time to explain what you mean with 'hyperspectral' but I'm assuming it just introduces a new dataset where we start all over.

Why is this "way better"? The article appears to discuss a blood tests to triage stroke which is unrelated to both disease treatment or identifying a root cause of the stroke.