lesiva
> A few centimeters of error may not matter much when navigating down a hallway, but it matters if a sensor is supposed to remain normal to a curved surface.
This is a great specific example of where the creativity (read: randomness) of AI runs into a wall. Do you see this changing over time as models improve, or do you expect that safety-critical / highly specific tasks will always require a more explicit set of instructions?
I'm actually surprised to hear such an accurate description from someone else, as my Googling has turned up very few matches so far.
I think this is a pretty weak complaint and it lacks any real substance.
I think the underlying point of the article is that the experience of using Cortana could be improved, and Microsoft should be providing explicit next steps at every phase so that you aren't left wondering what's going on. I'd agree with that. But claiming someone should be fired is ridiculous, especially considering that the author still doesn't know what the feature does and it could still pleasantly surprise him. It may just need an additional dialog explaining what to expect next.
I assume the feature gives you desktop notifications when the package transitions between tracking stages, and even if that's all the functionality it provides it'd still be more useful than manually checking the tracking website yourself.
Turning to the article's sources, you find [1] source for the testosterone claim. And the summary at the beginning of that study states the following:
"Vegans had higher testosterone levels than vegetarians and meat-eaters, but this was offset by higher sex hormone binding globulin, and there were no differences between diet groups in free testosterone, androstanediol glucuronide or luteinizing hormone."
So higher overall testosterone, the same amount of free testosterone. I think this is a perfect example of selectively reporting on scientific studies. The author of that article may not technically be wrong, but it encourages spreading bad advice when you repeat that claim over and over again without the caveats mentioned in the actual studies.
[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2374537/pdf/83-...
It's worth noting that it's even in the title of the study: "Hormones and diet: low insulin-like growth factor-I but normal bioavailable androgens in vegan men". There's no excuse for misrepresenting that.
They were suggesting that if you get your protein from plant sources, you should make sure to hit a complete amino acid profile and you should understand that digestibility is also lower for plant-based proteins.
While true that plant proteins are not “incomplete”, it is also true that some aren’t absorbed as well [1] and are lower in certain essential amino acids than others. The article/video that you linked suggests that the essential amino acid profiles don't matter, even from plant proteins, because you get more than you need anyway but that's not true for everybody.
Importantly, if you're someone who is physically active or looking to gain muscle mass! When you're physically active, your body _does_ use almost all of the protein that you give it (at least, all of the protein it's able to absorb through digestion). And if you give it a deficiency in certain essential aa's that it can't create for itself, you can see less muscle growth. In that case, it is important to either stick to some of the more complete veggie proteins or to consume a combination of proteins that satisfy a complete amino acid profile.
I'd be happy to see research to the contrary.
I'd also encourage anyone reading to consider a vegetarian or vegan diet. Cutting out meat is pretty easy, even if you have to complement proteins for bodybuilding, and it's one of the best individual contributions you can make to inhibiting climate change.