Some of the sites on this "web ring" (amazing!) definitely have Yahoo chat like applets and GIF animations that remind me of Flash. I miss Flash (kind of).
I've been looking for a community of exactly this! This website layout/feel scratches a really deep itch. Let's make a hand-crafted web of enthusiasts and bring back 1999 all by ourselves! :)
The problem with library apps isn't really the app. It's trivially easy to spin up a database with all the necessary fields. The real problem with library apps (or systems) is having to actually manage/index/code/scan the books, which is a pain.
While this advice is good, the article is discussing HSV (herpes simplex virus), not HPV (human papilloma virus), which have quite different symptoms and epidemiology. There are, as yet, no approved HSV vaccines.
You have to look past the stated intention. It's quite clear by logical deduction that it cannot be the stated purpose.
If the policy is intended to bring back US manufacturing, it would not be haphazardly implemented where the rates/industries/countries affected change by the hour. The best example are auto tariffs and steel/aluminum tariffs, which are going to absolutely destroy US auto manufacturing (where do we think the steel and aluminum used in cars are coming from?). An actual "reshoring" policy would be (1) targeted and (2) scheduled well in advance. So it obviously isn't that.
It also can't be part of a drug policy, since whatever Trump is saying about Canada is clearly false (Canada accounts for less than 1% of illicit fentanyl trade and is a net _importer_ of illegal drugs and guns _from_ the US), thus no policy can really impact this trade.
It also clearly can't be part of an energy policy, since US refineries are designed to accept a huge amount of Canadian and South American heavy crude (very little of which is produced in the US), so the oil tariffs can't possibly "onshore" more production of heavy crude.
The long-held theory by some that he's wrecking the economy for insider trading also doesn't make sense, because his favoured allies like Musk are losing tons of money right now, and an "insider trading" strategy would be much more regularly spaced rather than changing by-the-hour.
That leaves, by deduction, only a few possibilities:
* Trump really is intentionally wrecking the economy, for known or unknown reasons:
* He's wrecking the economy by instruction from a foreign agent (e.g. Putin - certainly indirect evidence exists)
* He's wrecking the economy because his donors told him to (e.g. Musk, other billionaires - unlikely because why would they want that? They would rather have the stock market go straight up, right?)
* He's wrecking the economy so that his "friends" can trade on the market with insider information (see above - seems unlikely based on the pattern)
* He's wrecking the economy so that his "friends" can buy things cheaply (would have been plausible but for the widespread collateral damage he's causing)
* Trump actually genuinely believes in tariffs (he's a product of the 80s after all)
* Trump actually genuinely hates Mexico, Canada, Europe, and China (seems plausible based on his personality and that of his political base)
* Trump really has no idea what he's doing (judge for yourself)
100%. I would say, even on the UI/UX side - Microsoft(!) has done a way better job on Edge (even though it's Chromium), with lots of new features on tab grouping, split screen browsing, note taking, syncing, and app integrations. Love it or hate it, at least they are doing some new features.
If tariffs work at all (which is doubtful), they're supposed to be part of an overarching plan with a long-term strategy in coordination with industry so that they can actually invest in creating new manufacturing. It certainly isn't going to work when tariffs are going on-off-on-off-25%-200%-10%-off-on-sometimes-off-on again. How in the world is _anyone_, American or otherwise, supposed to plan around this?
> I feel like every time I look at JavaScript it’s different .
So much truth in this. It's amazing that JS has managed to survive (even thrive!) in spite of the constant fundamental backwards-breaking changes every few cycles. Maybe that speaks to the lack of web based alternatives than anything else.
I mean, that's the point - in pharmaceutical sciences there's _so much noise_ including fraud that it's really only easy in hindsight to pick out "the guy" who was the "genius". It's hard to take one story like this and make it a repeatable success.
So much of this is hindsight bias though. There were no shortage of people with ideas and companies pursuing obesity drugs through a number of different pathways. Only in hindsight does it seem "genius" that Thomsen persisted and succeeded where nobody else did. But there are dozens, hundreds, of other smart people who were pursuing other pathways who did just as much stubborn work but didn't get a result. That's just pharmaceuticals.
Take, for example, another high profile disease - Alzheimer's. First there was the beta amyloid theory, then there was the p. gingivalis theory (this one was talked about so highly on this very forum, but ended in an equally high profile failure* of a pivotal clinical trial by Cortexyme). Now there are viral and metabolic theories. Each of these theories have a few dozen companies and armies of PhDs stubbornly pursuing a miracle drug, but so far it remains elusive.
* We also like to talk about "failures" of clinical trials, which is technically correct language, but evokes in the public imagination the wrong idea. A clinical trial failure doesn't mean there was something wrong with the idea or process (long before it ever gets there, a drug candidate would have been proven to be very effective in lab tests and animals). It's just that 90% of clinical trials don't end up working due to complex disease pathways and numerous unknown factors. It would help if we talked about "negative proofs" (i.e. proving something doesn't work is also valid), but it's not quite as catchy.
Am a lawyer. This is correct. Drafting subpoenas, motions, applications, convincing a skeptical judge that Twitter posts are "real" evidence, or explaining how DNS records work, not to mention actually scheduling a damn hearing, then multiply that by 4 or 5 jurisdictions (therefore 4 or 5 sets of lawyers), and you got yourself easily a few years' worth of work.
It's not quite that simple. If you've ever lived in a tall building and heard/seen/smelled stories of sewer pipes backing up, well you'll know what I mean. The bottom floor of a 50 storey building needs much more sewage space than the bottom floor of a 5 storey building. Anyway, there are considerations about venting, as well as increased capacity for lower floors versus higher floors, and the whole thing has to be designed in conjunction with the rest of the plumbing anyway.
I see this sentiment a lot, and as an engineer-turned-lawyer, I've always found this to be intriguing but unsatisfactory. Certainly lots of transactional type work (contracts, estates) and maybe even basic adversarial work (parking tickets and fines?) could be greatly enhanced by AI/ML.
But I've asked clients this question and while they would love to not have to pay lawyers - if you ever put the thought in front of them and asked whether they actually want an AI to represent them in court, when stakes are high and there's a chance of losing... well, I've never met anyone who has said they willingly take that chance.
Some fields will also certainly never be AI-ified. Not a snowball's chance in hell (and I know it sounds like a cranky person talking) that lawyers and judges in criminal/constitutional trials will ever be "replaced" by AI. It has nothing to to with the possibilities of present and future technology, but everything to do with optics. Society is almost certainly never going to accept being judged and/or losing to AI and algorithms. Even if a person has a losing case they would want to make sure to hear it from a human rather than a machine.