places an undue burden onto the user to determine and explain why data might be personal

The other way around: all data originating from a person, is by default “personal data”, and the burden of explaining which one is not, lies with whoever is keeping it.

you can’t look at any messages in any rooms you’ve been kicked out of

If they’re keeping them, then you can request a GDPR export of ALL your data. Doesn’t matter whether some interface or application allows you access to the data or not, or even if you’ve been banned from the whole platform; as long as they keep the data, they have an obligation to honor your rights of:

• Access
• Correction/Modification
• Removal

Even during obligatory data retention retention periods, when they can’t remove the data and only make it inaccessible, you still have the right to get a copy of your own personal data.

IIRC, one of the LLMs (was it OpenAI?) that crawled Reddit, had to manually remove subs like r/counting because they were messing with the training.

As long as the link between data and user is severed, they are compliant with GDPR. […] As long as it’s not personally identifiable, it’s OK.

Wrong.

In the US, data protection refers to “personally identifiable” data, so severing the link is enough. Under the GDPR, all “personal” data is protected, doesn’t matter if it has a link or not to identify the person.

The test under the GDPR, will be whether a comment has any personal data in it. If it’s a generic “LMAO”, then leaving it anonymous might be enough; if it is a “look at me [photo attached]” or an “AITA [personal story]”, then the person can ask for it to be removed, not just anonymized.

moiré superlattice

IIRC, they’ve been shown to change material responses to both photons and phonons. Makes me wonder whether in this case they’re seeing actual “fractional quanta” (kind of a contradiction in itself), or “just” an interaction with the moiré pattern (still interesting).

Once you can eat a hotdog, you can eat anything. Chicken nuggets and surimi are an even worse “meat shape”, yet plenty of people eat them.

deleted by creator

Rather the opposite: simplifying this down to an issue of just an AI introducing some BS, flattens out the problem that grifter journals don’t follow a proper peer review process.

introducing bias or false information in highly specialized fields

Reviewers are not perfect, and may miss things

It’s called a “peer review” process for a reason. If there are not enough peers in a highly specialized field to conduct a proper review, then the article should stay on arxiv or some other preprint server until enough peers can be found.

Journals that charge for “reviewing” BS, no matter if AI generated, or by a donkey with a brush tied to its tail, should be named and shamed.

We already have countless examples of this in science where a study with falsified data or poor methodology breeds a whole field of research which struggles to validate the original studies and eventually needs to be retracted.

…and no AI was needed. Goes to show how AI is the red herring here.

Vibration has two components: frequency, and intensity.

The brain is “floating” in cerebrospinal fluid, so your question can be deconstructed into two parts: how much of that vibration would the fluid transmit, and how would brain cells react to the resultant internal vibration.

We know that high intensity vibration can cause the skull to directly hit the brain, and/or compress the fluid to a point where just the pressure can start causing brain damage. I think you can find the (mostly) safe limits in OSHA regulations.

With high enough frequency vibrations, you could induce cavitation in the fluid, making it behave like an ultrasonic cleaner. That could start popping brain cells like balloons. Don’t do that. You might search ultrasound imaging equipment frequency and intensity limits, to have an idea of what is safe.

If it’s low frequency and intensity, that “we would consider safe”… there is no reason for it to not be safe, for the brain. That doesn’t mean it would be equally safe for other structures not floating in cerebrospinal fluid, like eyes, ears, teeth, the whole skull, muscles, spine, neck blood vessels, and similar. Cells are elastic to some degree, much more than bone, so soft tissues are less likely to get damaged by “safe” vibrations.

If you strapped a tiny vibrator to a head, there shouldn’t be any damage to the brain. One kind of such “vibrator” that many people use, is headphones. You could probably check the energy output of most toy vibrators with a dB meter for a rough comparison.

Strapping a head to a road vehicle… would depend on the vehicle’s shock absorbers, but there is a reason why seats usually have some additional cushioning on them.

If you want to check on some more extreme vibration limits, look at NASA’s manned rocket launch parameters. They aren’t pleasant, yet are limited so to not cause damage. (Don’t look at fighter jet limits, those are a tradeoff between “getting shot down” vs “some brain damage”).

Depends. Will this research allow creating AIs that can compose “in the style of Bach”, or even compose “ideal music”… and make a ton of money by selling it as a service to large music producers?

Coming soon: Song of the year, by [some figurehead] (composed and interpreted by AI)

The only known way to convert 100% of matter into photons, is a matter-antimatter annihilation. You are bound to encounter some antimatter over enough light years of travel, but it isn’t clear whether it would be enough to annihilate all your matter, and the ship’s matter (there doesn’t seem to be too much antimatter out there).

At some much earlier point though, you’re going to receive such an amount of high energy radiation, that the whole ship and its occupants, are going to turn into a ball of plasma… including the engines, so no more accelerating from there on.

That ball of plasma is going to collide with interstellar dust at quite high speed/energy levels, just like in a collider, with the particles breaking apart and creating a cascade, of photons and other particles, that will quickly decay and/or coalesce into other ones.

So you will become a photon, even a lot of photons, and while some would escape in random directions, the plasma cloud would dissipate and slow down over some distance, becoming mostly interstellar dust itself.

That’s interesting. May I ask you a few questions?

Why are you storing in the gas phase?

Some temperature spiking is normal, but it should not exceed the glass transition temperature of about -130°C.

Glass transition of what, the samples? Sample containers? …?

“one-fill all-fill” (OFAF) to work. OFAF fills all tanks sequentially once any one triggers the process.

What are the benefits of that?

From the usage graphs, why does it seem like Tank 1 is using the most nitrogen, even though Tank 3 is getting accessed the most? Shouldn’t Tank 3 have higher losses?

That’s what the bowl of petunias said.

Maybe a janitor turned off power to the whole lab to stop the irritating alarms… no, wait, I think that was a different case.

For me, it only works in Firefox, while both Chrome and the WebView, fail with a WebGL error.

her genetics

Honestly, I don’t see how any person is entitled to the ownership of info that’s shared with 99.9% of humanity, and which neither them nor any of their ancestors had any hand in creating.

It’s not like anyone has any custom handcrafted genes (yet). Other than a handful new mutations, even a possible copyright of “until death + 75 years” would have expired a long time ago.

Big pharma copyrighting and patenting the results of their investigations, makes more sense in this case; they’ve at least done something.

I was asked to become part of a study

You should have the right to get compensated for participating in a study, or for allowing them to associate the info with your name. I just think the info itself is part of the public domain.

Like, if you freely leave a fingerprint somewhere public, and someone decides to extract the DNA from that, then proceeds to use it to develop a treatment, cure, bioweapon, clone you, or test the safety of some extra wings genetic augmentation… then good for them.

It’s an interesting article, and well exposed.

It basically goes to say that the inactivation mechanism (Xist noncoding RNA strand) which gets triggered when there are two X chromosomes present in a cell, almost completely coats one of the X chromosomes, disabling it… but the result is not completely inert, still allowing the attachment of other partial strands, in weird combinations that can lead to an (auto)immune response.

If it helps, the HeLa cell line, very popular in scientific research, comes from an African American woman: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/HeLa

I guess the reason for using only male cells in this case, might’ve been that if they’re running the test either on a self-replicating cell line, or on a heavily inbred strain of lab mice, where both X chromosomes are supposed to be “practically identical” due to the inbreeding, while one of them gets inactivated in females, then running a test on cells with both X and Y chromosomes, would already include “all there was to see”, with only half the work.

It’s interesting to see some advances in the understanding of the interaction of two X chromosomes, and how the result is not exactly the same as a single X.

Are you sure? Based on the article, how exactly did they “separate” it?

It’s a blood vessel bypass to the whole brain, the BBB is between blood vessels inside the brain and brain tissue.

The implication for drugs, is in drug research: normally a drug will get spread all over the body, particularly passing through the liver, which metabolizes all it can, followed by the kidneys, which piss out all they can… so it isn’t easy to estimate how much of a given drug actually gets to the brain.

With a bypass, they can inject drugs directly into the brain, and see how they work without “interference” from the rest of the body.

I guess it could already allow full body transplants for tetraplegic patients… I mean, if they have no muscle control, and get a brain-dead donor, they have nothing to lose and might live who knows how much longer.

Probably a step farther, would be spinal nerve reconstruction, or using stuff like a brain implant to reconnect to the new body. Bridging nerve gaps is one of the first goals, and Neuralink’s first human tests are to be performed precisely on tetraplegic patients, so the two might be a good fit.

The article mentions an improved way to maintain blood flow to the isolated part, so that would be beneficial for all surgeries that need isolation (like heart surgery).

Of course the “pump random drugs only to the brain and see how it reacts”, is also interesting, just not as sensationalist… and they could even eat the rest of the pig afterwards, if the test drugs don’t make it there.