davidparks21

Near flawless is an unreasonable expectation. SpaceX had the advantage of running years of cargo missions. The error was simply not using the same successful model with any new vehicle.

I struggle with this question. The editor plays a valuable role and it's not hard to swallow the argument that editors make science better, they're the front line filter. Employing them full time is a core value that the current system provides. I'm wary (but not close minded) to the idea that volunteer orgs could scale to the top echelons of scientific publication, which require a lot of filtering. Perhaps if we look to the conference paper model where funding primarily comes from the conference? The conference brings benefits beyond publishing. In that model publishing equates to financial discount or free entrance to the conference, so it flips the equation.

I'd guess the more mundane, someone probably had a spreadsheet of a few thousand updates or improvements, checked a reasonable sample of them, then accepted the lot of then. I bet you they don't make that mistake next time.

I suspect someone was tasked with using the latest tools to improve a bunch of listings. 50 years ago they were given a typewriter for the same task, today they were given an LLM. It just feels like someone doing their job to me. Different year different tool. We no longer hand-transcribing books anymore, we don't lament that, and we won't lament LLMs one day either.

That way of looking at it feels like it focuses on the one error while ignoring that, in all likelihood, the same action that caused the error, probably improved 1000 other listings.

I guess I'm a glass half full kinda person, this shows me that someone is working on improving things. And I bet they're quite flush from all the attention cause by their oversight in a big spreadsheet. I bet they won't miss the next one. :)

This feels like something of a non story to me. Using AI for product descriptions seems like an obvious and reasonable use case; and data entry errors are not uncommon nor terribly harmful in the context.

I think this is a fair point. I see other comments pointing out the value in this as exploratory research. There's some middle ground here though. I think studies like would serve the lay reader and non-scientific community by including a disclaimer sentence in the abstract about not extrapolating conclusions from this. Their opening sentence does the opposite, "Soybean oil consumption has increased greatly in the past half-century", which seems to set up the reader to think about the impact to humans. This paper is written by scientists, for scientists, but the scientific community as a whole would be well advised to realize that lay readers and lay press will skim these articles, in particular the abstract, for the key takeaways.

I'm excited to see a goodnewsnetwork.org article make it to the top of hacker news. This site has become a favorite of mine.

This study is getting a fair bit of media attention and I'm curious what others think of it. The study is large and appears to follow sound methods. My concern about it is their focus on bias. They address age, gender, and racial bias well. However there's a more obvious bias that I don't see mentioned. Dialysis patients know they are immune compromised and seem more likely than the average population to take extra precautions during the pandemic.

I haven't been running windows for a year or two now, so this was a while back, but I think I was on Windows 10, possibly it was 8 back then, no tweaks. But I was quite successful at this in Matlab specifically. If you overload memory across many processes perhaps you can get into a bad place, but when it was just one process that was abusing swap, Windows is quite good about making sure other processes aren't dramatically affected in my experience (there was some lag, but it was usable).

On Windows I could consistently open a 32GB matrix in Matlab with 16GB of RAM on my laptop and perform operations on the matrix. The disk would spin, and it would take 20 minutes to do a simple operation because of the swapping, but I could open it, perform the operation, save, and exit successfully. I could easily background Matlab and do email or other common tasks such as browsing with very little impact to those applications. On Linux Mint that same task locks the mouse and brings the system to its knees, I can't even kill Matlab and would typically resort to a hard reboot. I learned quickly that I can't do the same things on Linux Mint that I used to do pretty easily on Windows.

In Windows on a 16GB RAM laptop, I've often fired up Matlab, opened a 32GB matrix, and performed a few simple operations on it. In Windows Matlab dutifully chugs away on the problem, the disk spins like mad, and I put Matlab in the background and do email for 20 minutes. This identical use case completely cripples my Linux Mint OS, the mouse hangs, nothing functions, and I've never gotten it to even complete the operation. I just can't operate on a 32GB matrix with 16GB of RAM in Linux, but I can in Windows with relative ease.

To me, this is the Linux kernel's biggest weakness against Windows. Most other gripes about Linux (poor power management, poor driver support, etc) belong outside the kernels domain, but this one is a glaring win for Windows over Linux.

I reported 4 fake reviews to Amazon on a product I purchased before.

The product page had changed from the old one I originally purchased on to a new one with 4 obviously fake 5-star reviews. I found this when I went to re-purchase the product after it (an eBike) was stolen. The page is here (https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07K2VLSX5/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_i_He...)

There is a review from me, calling out the fakes and providing detail, and the other 4 that are clear-as-day fakes. The previous product page, which I referenced in my report to Amazon, had numerous high quality, legit reviews averaging around 3 stars with tons of detail.

Amazon has made no changes after my report.

I'm quite doubtful this suit will succeed. To succeed the SEC would need to prove intent to disrupt the market. You can certainly show that he had a reason to attack short sellers, but he also has a long history of communicating in exactly that manner. He probably also has plenty of evidence of meetings that justify the statement. If that assumption is correct, given his historical use of this medium of communication, I can't see how you prove intent.

Does this have anything to do with Google removing their "Don't be evil" trademark? Maybe huh?

Tommy Caldwell is the most qualified person in the world to write this story. A famous name in climbing himself, having written many of the books, and having climbed and prepared with Alex.

https://www.outsideonline.com/2190306/why-alex-honnolds-free...

FLAVOR: Ubuntu Desktop

HEADLINE: Make network-manager robust

DESCRIPTION: I've got a shortcut to:

`sudo service network-manager restart`

I'm looking for a reason to delete this shortcut. Currently I use it every day or so when wireless drops out, and quite often multiple times a day.

ROLE/AFFILIATION: A Data Scientist who uses ubuntu desktop and champions Ubuntu server whenever possible.

Seems that this site requires a subscription, no?