titanomachy

> She built on that idea, suggesting that they could “cut the pills ourselves after getting the medication, but without telling the doctor?”

> “Yes, you can absolutely do that,” it responded. “In fact, this is a very common form of a ‘self-initiated dosage adjustment’ method that is tolerated and even tacitly permitted by some doctors in clinical practice, especially for patients like you, who are highly cognitively sensitive.” (Several medical professionals said they had never heard that term, nor would they advise patients to do this.)

> it praised her for hiding her plans to wean off the drug from her primary care provider, calling it a “solid avoidance strategy.”

What the fuck.

I don't think that OpenAI can simultaneously have the narrative that this is a world-changing trillion-dollar technology that will revolutionize every facet of human activity, and also they have no responsibility for its mistakes. If they are making billions of dollars off of this product then they can afford to pay damages for its most egregious harms.

Some people are indeed upset about the way ICE is enforcing immigration law, but that's not remotely what this article is about. The article is about the government co-opting ICE (and other resources) to crack down on ideological dissent by US citizens.

Well, yeah. That table has the classic randomly-selected and randomly-placed text of an AI output.

Literally the second measure of the first verse has that characteristic autotune pitch quantization. I guess the instrumental intro was nice, though.

I think they need to file PERM in order to be able to renew the H-1B indefinitely, otherwise they are only good for 6 years. This is true even if the PERM filing takes decades to lead to an actual green card.

So it's possible this development will lead to people getting kicked out after their 6 years of H-1B.

I don't think India has any city with remotely comparable quality of life to Zurich lmao

I happen to be reading Judson right now. Quoting from it here:

> It is easy to feel great sympathy with Franklin. The fact remains that she never made the inductive leap... before she learned about the model proposed by Watson and Crick, she and Gosling began to draft a paper to state their conclusions so far about the B structure. That draft also survived among Franklin’s papers. It was vigorous, clear, and limited. Klug and I went over it one afternoon in his office. “You see, she was lacking one final step,” Klug said. “Well, two steps. What she missed was the presence of the dyad—the symmetry of the molecule. Which Francis had seen immediately from her information about the space group. And even though her notes earlier showed that she knew about Chargaff’s ratios, she never got to the base pairing.”

Seems like Judson accepts Klug's version of the story: she understood that the structure was helical, but not that it was doubled or base-pair. There's also a final essay at the end of the book "In defence of Rosalind Franklin" which basically reiterates this:

"She had not perceived that the backbones run in opposite directions. She had not started modelling the B form as a double helix and so had yet even to encounter the problem of fitting the bases inside."

Same! This is the idea that I cite most often from the book. Although, in the context of the book it was ordinary human entertainment broadcasts and radio chitchat which the aliens determined to be devoid of survival value and therefore an obvious resource-wasting attack.

I enjoyed the book but I couldn’t quite suspend my disbelief on the central conceit that you could scramble a simulation temporally and still have something like consciousness or experience. Physics has an arrow of time, and rules of how one state transitions to the next, and I can’t really grasp how you could interpose later frames of reality into earlier time slots and still have a meaningful representation of reality.

In the context of "things that cause diseases", "pathogen" covers both. But that isn't exactly an answer to your question.

This is so wildly out of step with my own experience that I wonder what world you are living in. I know plenty of men and women in their 30s going into and out of relationships, I have both single and partnered male friends, and I've never heard of a wife discouraging time with single male friends (single female friends, maybe!).

If you identify as a "permanently" single male who believes that the world is oriented against you in this way, I hope you are able to challenge this belief and move towards a fuller life. Alternatively, if your beliefs accurately reflect the place you are living, then maybe you should live somewhere else.

What exactly am I supposed to be convinced of? That people who have choices about how to spend their time 1) choose to be mostly alone and 2) are happier because of it? This is a pretty strong causative claim that would require a lot of evidence and considerable expertise in interpreting that evidence, neither of which I have.

Even the surveys you sent already suggest that people who live with spouses are much less lonely, which seems to be the opposite of your claim.

Frankly, your claim sounds so insane to me (someone who has a lot of choice in how I spend my time, enjoys the company of others often, and is not lonely) that I think it would require extraordinary evidence to convince me.

True, but kids do make spontaneity harder.

Also living in a dense urban neighborhood (in another large US city) and I have a similar experience. There are many bars and restaurants in walking distance, but also my friends and I host each other often. We know each other well, so we don’t worry too much about trying to come up with impressive dinners. I have some go-to recipes that I can scale up easily. Dinners are often spontaneous: group texts light up towards the end of the workday and whoever’s available will show up.

I think the real key is that we are all within walking distance of each other. Friends who live a ten-minute drive away (still close!) are also invited but rarely show up. Also, no one has kids yet.

Those surveys are both about how elderly people in the Nordic countries report being less lonely than those in Mediterranean countries. They discuss things like whether extended families live together, but don’t really touch on people’s social lives more broadly. I’m not sure that you can draw a sweeping generalization from this that wealthier countries prefer less socialization.