timr

20 ms·

391.
by timr 10mo ago
You missed three very important caveats that complicate the story you’re trying to tell: 1) not every strain of HPV causes cancer (iirc, the bad ones are rare). 2) many people (in fact, most people) who are active in the world have been inf
392.
by timr 10mo ago
I quoted you, and responded specifically to the quote. The reason doctors don’t offer the test is not because of some straw man arguments (“a horrible mindset…”) involving their diminished judgment of importance of the virus in men, as yo
393.
by timr 10mo ago
> It is done less routinely, usually under assumption that since it is women who are mostly at risk, why bother testing men. Which is horrible mindset in anything related to epidemiology. No. The general reason that people don't do
394.
by timr 10mo ago
A question for your doctor and your partner (and of course, you can read the data in the link I posted above and use that to influence your conversation and decision!) I'm not being avoidant here -- medical decisions are always subje
395.
by timr 10mo ago
Parent is overstating the case. Neither infection nor vaccination provides sterilizing immunity [1], but the general reasons to prefer vaccination are (in order of descending quality of evidence & reasoning): 1) you probably haven'
396.
by timr 10mo ago
> While it won't clear an existing infection, it protects against different strains and reinfection (typically body removed HPV in 1-2 years). See: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38137661/ The study you'v
397.
by timr 10mo ago
Ah, definitely agent-based copilot. I don't even have the autocomplete stuff turned on anymore, because I found it annoying.
398.
by timr 10mo ago
Perhaps there's some unmeasured influence, but this study was looking only at the difference between growth within subjects vs between subjects . If the subjects were all "newbies", then that doesn't explain the resul
399.
by timr 10mo ago
Good question. No strict line, and it's always going to be subjective and a little bit silly to categorize, but when I'm debating this argument I'm thinking: a product that does not exist today (obviously many parts of even
400.
by timr 10mo ago
> I know you said don't engage in "you're holding it wrong"... but have you tried these models running in a coding agent tool loop with automatic approvals turned on? edit : I wrote a different response here, then I
401.
by timr 10mo ago
I’ve used Sonnet 4.5 and Codex 5 and 5.1, but not in their native environment [1]. Setting aside the fact that your examples are mostly “replicate this existing thing in language X” [2], again, I’m not saying that the models haven’t gotten
402.
by timr 10mo ago
It’s a vague statement that I obviously cannot defend in all interpretations, but what I mean is: the performance of models at making non-trivial applications end-to-end, today, is not practically better than it was a few years ago. They’re
403.
by timr 10mo ago
> And now, with Opus 4.5 or Codex Max or Gemini 3 Pro we can write substantial programs one-shot from a single prompt and they work. Amazing! People have been doing this parlor trick with various "substantial" programs [1] sinc
404.
by timr 10mo ago
> However it will cause ecosystem collapse which we rely on for food due to too rapid change Citation absolutely required. This is not in the IPCC reports, which are already quite extreme in their projections. The IPCC sixth assessment
405.
by timr 10mo ago
Yes, “increased logging” means logging. It’s the primary change cited by the paper.
406.
by timr 10mo ago
Humanity is not going extinct.
407.
by timr 10mo ago
or plant more trees. immediate.
408.
by timr 10mo ago
The change here is due to logging, not some inevitable climate feedback loop. Cut down fewer trees than you grow, and the situation reverses. In fact, the natural feedback cycle of increasing CO2 in the atmosphere is for greenery to increa
409.
by timr 10mo ago
The link you are replying to is explicit that forests are carbon sinks (which is just a scientific fact), and that the change here is due to logging. Planting more trees than you cut down is an effective way of offsetting CO2 emissions.
410.
by timr 10mo ago
> You're saying that a group having to spend all of its time fundraising has always been true in your lifetime and you link it to your time as a grad student decades ago and earlier when you were an undergrad. Do I have that right?
411.
by timr 10mo ago
Depends entirely on the stage of the disease and the aggressiveness of the cancer! Getting an aggressive brain cancer when you had early stage Alzheimer’s [1] would be tragic. The tradeoff would be years of life. For the record, I have no i
412.
by timr 10mo ago
Yes, I understand your claim that things are tighter now; I've repeatedly acknowledged that fact, and in any case, I have no personal basis to dispute the argument. But again, that's not related to the point I'm making. One l
413.
by timr 10mo ago
I was also in science during Clinton, and what I’m saying was true then. The increase in funding went hand in hand with a massive increase in people seeking funding . So maybe there was some golden era of happy times when nobody had to cha
414.
by timr 10mo ago
Science gets done by the people you hire with the money you raise. And yes, everyone in a group is always thinking about the next grant. I’m not joking. I’m not exaggerating. This is the job, and it’s always been this way (at least in my li
415.
by timr 10mo ago
This was true when I was a grad student, decades ago. It was true when I worked in a lab as an undergraduate before that. Specifics of the current environment aside, welcome to academic life. Unless you are one of the exceptionally fortun
416.
by timr 10mo ago
This might be true. I’ve never thought about it deeply enough!
417.
by timr 10mo ago
> This is literally not a thing that exists outside of some foreigners' imaginations. I think you're a little obsessed with this. It's not pitch accent and I'm not "being fooled", but if you want to insist t
418.
by timr 10mo ago
> If you're trying to say that when those two denote /o:/ it is a different /o:/, you are laughably wrong. There's literally a different sound, which is why the difference in kana exists. Disagree if you lik
419.
by timr 10mo ago
You’ll hear it more easily with time. It’s hard to completely separate stuff like this from context (i.e. it’s far more rare to have a collision in sound that makes sense if you know the rest of the sentence ), but it does matter for discr
420.
by timr 10mo ago
They’re not the same. おう is discernible from おお, and the difference can be important. That said, this is far from the most important problem in Japanese pronunciation for westerners, and at speed the distinction between them can become very

More ›