CharonY

That is a very good way to put it. True- it is funny, in a way. Bits of it, such as how he imagined what is basically the internet (matrix) or virtual reality was clearly a product of its time and got rather dated. But in other concepts, perhaps how we interact with AI is very modern. The class struggle element is core to the "punk" aspect and it was very interesting how Gibson (and other authors in the genre) imagined things. In the early days the scrappy tech startups were often seen as the rebellious types vs the big corporations. That obviously didn't hold up well.

Of course literary preference is just a matter of taste even in if you are objectively and undeniably wrong here ;).

Yes it is definitely an acquired taste. I like the chrome-neon vibes coupled with a mix of fairly cold descriptions of society (matching the feel) juxtaposed with the almost poetic (if abstract) elements of the virtual world.

It is interesting- sometimes a bit high-octane for my taste, but a good read for sure. I didn't know that. Perhaps that is why I like his books? It is a very good book with great world-building. I would echo exchemist's notion, though. A lot of scifi of that period has a very two-dimensional view on women which makes it less enjoyable for some (especially female readers, who are are otherwise scifi nerds). My memory is hazy, but I recall a lot of exposition which amounts to an imperialist society ending up with something of a Lawrence of Arabia meets Soviets and Mujahedeen. On drugs. Lots of drugs.

For some reasons it was one of the books that I liked as a kid and didn't care that much about for later. I think Asimov is a good indicator of what your preferences are in literature.. Sci-Fi often has some kind of idea or hook which is then extrapolated. From that perspective, Asimov is fantastic. Great ideas with a lot of world-building and fantastic logical flow. On the other hand, the prose is dull (just as you would expect from someone in natural science) and pretty much the only distinguishing feature of his characters are their names. Still love those. Also, if world-building is of interest, Iain M. Banks culture novels are also fantastic. That being said, and I am not entirely sure but for some reasons I found that I like the style of Scottish writers (I found out after looking at the bios of my favorite writers and for some reasons the list was British and especially Scottish writers). From American authors, Gibson's Neuromancer has been genre-defining (cyberpunk) though slightly dated (which gives it an interesting air of nostalgia IMO) and Butler (a very different voice in scifi) come to mind among those who have not been mentioned yet. But I would echo @swansont's recommendation to check out a library and figure out what you enjoy.

And the US is doing its best to un-change the probably single biggest element of public health (i.e. vaccines in general, not only mRNA). I think a big change in the workforce will be coming and it is quite important to figure out where we go from there. For example, one issue is that AI tools are already kinda of apt in taking over bullshit office work. Essentially rote work with limited judgement calls or other need for human input. This makes it very attractive to cut down entry level jobs in favor of AI, or perhaps rather fewer people who can do the same work using AI tools. However, in many areas such drudgery (e.g. literature search) can be actually quite important to train folks and entry level positions are where they acquire skills they need to reach the higher level positions. Getting rid of those therefore eliminates "classic" training positions and I am not really seeing that folks are creating alternatives to that. It is a bit what we see in a different context in university- students use it to cut down the boring work of reading and writing and as a consequence do not properly learn to read and write, limiting their higher-level prospects.

I suspect that there could be multiple things going on here. I suspect many AI companies would want to avoid discovery to protect technologies that even after a bankruptcy they might exploit somehow. It could also affect total debt (especially if punitive damages are awarded) and perhaps there are differences in how these things are organized in a bankruptcy. But these are only wild guesses.

Wild-Ass Guess (there could be other permutations)

My WAG is that early human inquiry into nature involved munching on things.

It might be slightly off-topic, and while a narrow-use like road safety might be less questionable, I am wondering about privacy issues regarding the collection of surveillance data in the age of AI. UK, Germany and other countries do have some sort of Data Protection laws and I believe that generally speaking they are supposed to be for narrow use cases. But given the relative use of widening the scope with fast-moving tech, I am a bit concerned regarding oversight.

I should add, fermented foodstuff frequently has plenty of (mostly) harmless bacteria. Antigens from them are likely also interact with our immune system and potentially mitigate responses. Fundamentally, I would prefer priming of the immune system with those, rather than with helminths. The latter are likely able to better suppress the immune system (due to reasons mentioned earlier).

Well, we have plenty of pathogenic bacteria in our bodies, too.

It is a bit difficult to explain. The way I see it, there is really no clear optimum state of the immune system (at least as I understand it). Rather I now tend to think of it as a series of potential equilibria that are governed by an incredible number of factors, ranging from genetics, age, exposure to pathogens and other antigens through one's life history and so on.

There is potentially yet another thing at play here. In many cases, the immune system does not really fight them off. Many helminths happily reside in the gut and what many do is to modulate the immune responses of their host (many mechanisms have only recently been discovered). The overall result is that immune-related ejection is suppressed which incidentally also reduces the likelihood of allergic reactions. I think based on the molecular knowledge we have now, we can move away from the original rough hygiene hypothesis and dig a bit deeper into mechanisms. The bottom line is that the immune system is an incredibly complex system which many interactions between the body and its inhabitants. It is almost impossible to define a "best" state from the bits and pieces we know, though we can certainly define a lot of adverse outcomes.

That is exactly it. "Healthy" is actually a bit of a tricky term as we often do not really have a clearly defined optimization parameter to look at. As mentioned multiple times, there is no such things as a strong or a weak gene in isolation. And strong selection in a gene pool can leave a much less diverse gene pool that then becomes weaker to changes in selective pressures. Likewise, even things like a strong health can be difficult to define. What if you are physically ailing, but survive for a long time? What if for some reasons you are very fertile but die young? What if you have been exposed to many infections and might have strong memory effects in your immune system, yet the repeated infections have irreparably damaged your organs?

That then goes into the other argument is that we are then limiting the gene pool again. Simple example that we have discussed already: malaria. While there is a vaccine now (which is only somewhat effective) in the past there was none and in malaria-rich areas the population have a higher than typical prevalence of sickle-cell genes. These of course increase the risk of sickle-cell anemia. If there was a 100% effective vaccine, their levels would be close to those in malaria-free areas. In that scenario, would you consider you argument to be valid? And if so, how? Explain your reasoning, please.

As others have mentioned, generally speaking and depending on jurisdiction you can lose ownership of an animal once it escapes, and you certainly do not get ownership if they reproduce. However, you can be held liable for any damages (including ecological ones) if you release them or if they escape due to your negligence. Moreover, if the animals are genetically modified, they may fall under special laws governing the release of GMO organisms. That being said, the situation might be different if you have a patented breed, someone gets access to them and then breeds them for themselves and sell them for profit, it might be different as there patent infringement comes into play. That is very different question than ownership of an animal.

I don't think that science is well suited for that, but their application and technology are a very real risk factor. And to add to that, we have not yet seen the full potential, COVID-19 was basically just a very successful test case. Its ability to lower the difficulty in implementation in areas including cancer has a huge potential for immunotherapies. The US made a huge investment in that area which and has been pulling back now.

What you seem to be saying is that you expect everything to have a cost and are wondering what it might be. Here, the cost is basically a larger surviving population with all its advantages and drawbacks. But I don't think there is big evolutionary argument to be made here.

In academia that is clearly not the case. There are always researchers working on fundamental science vs applied (including in medicine or engineering). The big breakthroughs folks experience and you see in the media are often in the latter, but they often need first work in the former, which mostly only makes scientists really excited, but often largely passes by the general public. And in the area of fundamental science, it depends on the time frame. If you compare progress that a single person could do to add to the knowledge 100 years ago vs now, it is clear that things have slowed down- as it should. As we accumulate knowledge, the easier bits will be understood first, but more complex questions require more technologies (which is often fed by applied research) and more work. There is the very recent tendency to publish very low-level papers, but that is more of a structural issue, in part with an increasing number of folks getting higher degrees who are less able to do independent research.

Have you checked out the references I provided? There are also synthesis statements based on those and other papers from medical field that I could pull up, assuming that this is a good faith question. It also suggests given all the other elements such as diet, the use of sunscreen (at least up to SPF 30 ish) does not provide evidence for enhanced risk for vitamin D deficiency. Recommendations are typically based this whole assessment as folks want to know the outcome given everything that a person does. This will inevitably have areas of uncertainty. There are a handful for intervention style studies, too (Australia has been mentioned). Can you explain exactly what your hypothesis (I don't really see a theory here) is as it reads still very unspecific to me.

Well, also yeast will have consumed a fair bit of the nutrients (at least where they are sitting). I suspect that this is a larger contributor as yeast is fairly resilient.

And especially nowadays, it would be perfect for mass manipulation via social media.

As mentioned above, yes. SCOTUS basically declared (Seila Law vs CFBP) that there are only two limits to the powers of the President to fire folks. Based on the criteria they lay out, firing her was entirely legal.

As mentioned the effect seems to be small. Most studies I have seen were based on tracking folks who used high levels of SPF (e.g. because of some underlying conditions) and then track their Vitamin levels. There are also handful of controlled trials but usually at lowish SPF (see an example for Australia doi:10.1001/archderm.1995.01690160043006). Obviously, there could also be other effects, but after sufficient such studies you should see an overall lower level among those whop regular use sunscreen, vs the control groups. So far, metastudies have not shown a strong effect. An example is here https://doi.org/10.1111/bjd.17980 However, also as mentioned, the data for very high levels of SPF are still sparse (I think I saw an abstract somewhere suggesting that very high SPF could increase risk of vitamin D deficiency but cannot recall it very clearly).