el_cujo

I think this was true at one point but not for the past 5-10 years. Based off of using the site I feel like now a lot of things start on other sites (particularly smaller accounts on twitter), get aggregated and popularized on 4chan, and then get picked up on other sites (often regurgitated back to twitter). Knowyourmeme shows this for a lot of things that people typically attribute as original to 4chan. There was definitely a time when a ton of stuff originated on 4chan but these days everything is so interconnected with the same people posting on twitter, reddit, and 4chan that I think 4chan gets a lot of unearned credit

I'm not an OpenAI apologist and don't like what they've done with other people's intellectual property but I think that's kind of a false equivalency. OpenAI's GPT 3.5/4 was a big leap forward in the technology in terms of functionality. DeepSeek-r1 isn't really a huge step forward in output, it's mostly comparable to existing models, one thing that is really cool about it is it being able to be trained from scratch quickly and cheaply. This is completely undercut if it was trained off of OpenAI's data. I don't care about adjudicating which one is a bigger thief, but it's notable if one of the biggest breakthroughs about DeepSeek-r1 is pretty much a lie. And it's still really cool that it's open source and can be run locally, it'll have that over OpenAI whether or not the training claims are a lie/misleading

Yeah I think that kind of thing isn't supposed to be "predictive". The "rules" in series aren't very clear, sometimes they type stuff out into a keyboard, sometimes they connect a cable from their head, sometimes they just pass stuff around/hack basically just just "telepathically" without even needing the wire, they do whatever seems cool for a scene. I think the "splitting fingers" thing happens in one of the movies but also in SAC, but I think the point is just that it looks interesting and seeing the fingers do that and start suddenly typing quickly gives a sense of tension/urgency that you wouldn't get if it was just the character sitting back and staring at the screen (even if "in universe" they're able to work just as effectively that way)

Agree 100%, even if you can manage an exception it does not look good to be the odd man out. It's easy to imagine people like this being the initial "easy choices" when layoff discussions happen. Not saying people should just roll over, but if you can manage an exception and see work from home as a requirement, I'd view that as your opportunity to maintain employment while looking for a company that takes remote work seriously

>One red flag should be that nowhere in this news article is the reader made aware of the exact nature of the manipulated images or their implications.

Because that was covered in detail when the manipulations were first reported and those articles are linked to in the above article. This is just reporting on the resulting retraction two years after that initial report.

>it's much less dramatic and all the findings were also replicated following this inquiry to show that any image alteration, that might have been made for editorial purposes, does not affect conclusions

Other groups had issues replicating the results with the same oligomer (often just chalked up to its instability), it's not like someone just happened to stumble upon these manipulations casually. This retraction only happened because Nature rejected the author's attempt to publish a correction. This whole thing is a black mark on Nature's record as well so if it really was just some minor change to make a picture look prettier for publishing purposes, I doubt they would have insisted on this action

There really isn't one in my opinion. Academic postdoc positions in many fields are pitched as a stepping stone to professorship, but professor positions are very few so you end up with PHDs continuing the low-pay grind after graduation to prop up academia for a dream that doesn't come true. I think it's good more are recognizing this and just going to industry, maybe eventually this will cause problems and academia can be motivated to fix itself instead of viewing post docs as disposable. Or maybe there's no problem to fix and this is academia just getting correctly recognized as the grind option for people who are actually ok with that

Absolutely, but most of this stuff happens outside of what shows up in the paper like coming up with excuses on why data points can be dropped or shopping around for different statistical methods that make things look the best. There can even be legit reasons for doing this kind of thing and that's what makes it hard to detect, it's basically just the honor system on whether you're "p-value hacking" or following common methods.

This is kind of why it annoys me a bit when I hear people harping on about trusting science, most science is not as simple as finding objective truths and just reporting them. That's not to say all science is bs and you're better off consulting a magic 8 ball, just that it should never be discouraged to look at methods and conclusions with a critical attitude. There is room for things to be fudged or pushed and very strong incentives for people to do it given how much money and prestige are on the line. It doesn't even have to be as big as a drug trial, one high profile publication can be enough to make a career so you can see how tempting it can be to just change a couple pixels in an image to boost a theory you earnestly believe is true

I don't think those ideas necessarily contradict. If you're using VR to collaborate with someone on the other side of the country (or world) but you only need to collaborate intermittently, then remote collaboration just has to be "good enough" to offset the cost of travel even if in person would be ideal. Meanwhile, for their own employees who may need to collaborate daily, from their point of view they might think in that case it makes more sense to enforce in-person. I doubt Meta's stated goal (at this point) with their VR stuff is that you should never ever leave your house because VR is just as good, seems like it's more "this thing enables remote to be better".

In a painfully literal sense, yeah it's being paid by tax payers because everyone pays taxes. The better distinction is that it is not paid via tax revenue. Even if the FDIC has to levy fees on banks to help cover the cost and the banks raise fees on their customers to cover this, this is not the same as the tax payers funding the bailout because they're not funding it in their capacity as tax payers (where they have no option but to pay the government and would probably prefer their money go towards building a school or something). Additionally, the banks wouldn't just be scooping the extra money out of people's accounts, it would be in the form of higher fees or something which the customer could decide to leave the bank over if they desired. Most wouldn't do this, but again the point is that there is at least an option where as a tax payer funded bailout there isn't. At a certain point, everything in the economy is connected and you could drill deep enough to say the tax payer pays for literally everything, but at that point the label becomes meaningless.

Yes, it got significantly edgier after going private.

Cumtown the podcast is chapo adjacent, /r/cumtown the subreddit was much closer to the The_Donald than chapo with its content.

The_Donald was neutered a long time ago. The real story is the 200 other subs getting shut down and Reddit essentially saying the wild west days on their site are actually over now. Several publications have focused on The_Donald at least in the headline because I assume it makes for a sexier, more political story than about a website cracking down on moderation.

I agree that it's probably not a 100% accurate picture, but if you included in the "known cases" every single person who stayed home out of paranoia because they had a stuffy nose, then you'd have the opposite problem of numbers being bloated and overblown. The media is already chomping at the bit to sow fear and paranoia in exchange for views, I'm ok with looking at data with the understanding that it's probably underrepresented versus data that is probably just a complete guess. In an ideal world, yes, every single hospital would have thousands of test kits on hand to test everyone but we aren't there yet.