Domenic_S
It's nothing new - is will it blend still a thing? - but man it seems like they're everywhere now
I'm sorry, Lloyd's will _what_??
I've been down the mmWave rabbit hole for the last 6 months, making sensors to put around the house to control automations for lights and so forth. They're pretty great.
For my use case the advantage over PIR is they do presence detection, so no more lights shutting off when you're sitting on the toilet.
Pretty amazing you can pick up basic mmWave sensors for a few bucks on amazon, and mate them to an esp32 board which is another couple bucks. It's so much fun as a hobby!
Yale's E360 Digest is not a buddy mentioning a topic in passing.
Have some standards.
Seems.... fine?
What an awful take. The point of news shouldn't be "assume I'm right and the readership takes my word for it". It should help the reader come to a conclusion, because it's news and not opinion. If you have to go do your own research not to dig deeper but because the article failed to even cover the basic arguments, it has utterly and completely failed.
Maybe I'm just not getting it, could you lay out a scenario?
Polymarket might be different, but conventional Vegas-style lines change with the amount of $$ bet, if the pool is $50M and an insider bets $10k on the long shot, the line isn't moving -- I don't see how insider information can be surfaced in this scenario except after the fact (and only maybe then).
In other words, if the line changes enough to signal insider info, it's not really insider info anymore.
Rhetorical nonsense. If I'm a student about to take geometry for the first time, I can certainly have a sense of what I'll understand when I "understand something [I] do not currently understand".
The explanatory gap, IIUC, is rather simple: we can't explain why neurons firing results in us feeling/experiencing the world. This doesn't seem controversial to me.
I feel like that overstates the point quite a bit. There's a lot that's similar: neurotransmitter release is stochastic at the vesicle level, ion channels open and close probabilistically, post-synaptic responses have noise. A given neuron receiving identical input twice doesn't produce identical output. Neither brains nor LLMs have a central decider that forms intent and then implements it. In both, decisions emerges from network dynamics, they're a description of what the system did, not a separate cause (see Libet's experiments).
Now pretty clearly there's a lot that's different, and of course we don't understand brains enough to say just how similar they are to LLMs, but that's the point: it's an interesting thought experiment and shutting it down with a virtual eyeroll is sad.
You left out the part of speech for that entry, which is "adjective"; as in "the cyber marketplace", not "the cyber".
Using "cyber" as a noun there seems language coded for government. DC has a love of "the cyber" but do technologists use the term that way when not pointing at government?
no monitor switching needed, although i did hook up a hub for more usb ports.
> In informal contexts, a hyphen-minus (-) is often used as a substitute for an en dash, as is a pair of hyphen-minuses (--) for an em dash, because the hyphen-minus symbol is readily available on most keyboards. The autocorrection facility of word-processing software often corrects these to the typographically correct form of dash. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dash
- The comparator vaccine is indicated for the same population.
- The comparator has existing clinical effectiveness data.
In other words, the trial design should use a benchmark that makes sense given what doctors and guidelines actually recommend today. For older adults, evidence over the past 15+ years has shown that enhanced flu vaccines often provide better protection than standard-dose ones. The study used standard-dose vaccines as far as we can see.
The only oddity here is that the FDA apparently approved the study previously
[0] https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda-guidan...
* The study was on people age 50+,
* In the US for adults 65+ (a key high-risk group in the trial), the ACIP preferentially recommends higher-antigen or adjuvanted options like Sanofi, Seqirus adjuvanted, recombinant high-antigen Flublok, etc as the "best-available standard of care",
* The "standard flu shot" Moderna used is likely not one of the above, or they would have said so
The idea here is to see if the new shot is meaningfully better than the best existing/approved option for the target demographic, not to see if it's better than a standard shot you give a healthy 20-year-old.
All-in-all feels like a nothingburger.
Here's a slightly old investigation finding 40% of ewaste being shipped off to china: https://www.ban.org/news-new/2016/9/15/secret-tracking-proje...
https://cdtfa.ca.gov/taxes-and-fees/covered-electronic-waste...
> NPR's analysis found that, of its verifiable work completed so far, DOGE has cut just $2 billion in spending — less than three hundredths of a percent of last fiscal year's federal spending.
> "Think of Congress and its budget as the debt-ridden dad on the way to buy a $250,000 Ferrari on the credit card, and DOGE is the $2 off gas card he used along the way," Riedl said. "It's great that he saved $2 on gas, but I think his wife may be more concerned about the $250,000 car."
https://www.npr.org/2025/02/19/nx-s1-5302705/doge-overstates...
Where we fall dreadfully short compared to other countries is corporate tax revenue. In 2021, corporate income tax revenue in the U.S. was 1.6% of GDP, compared to the OECD average of 3.2%
Tangentially:
It’s wild how inconsistent the public and political reactions are to different ways of getting revenue. Take this common pattern:
When DOGE identifies billions of dollars in waste, fraud, or unnecessary spending, the reaction is often: "That’s only 0.01% of the federal budget. It’s nothing!"
But when someone proposes a tax on billionaires that would over time raise a similar amount suddenly the reaction flips: "We’ll solve inequality! Fund healthcare!"
This contradiction is everywhere. How can $20 billion in government savings be "nothing," while $20 billion in new tax revenue is "transformational"? It's the same money.