You don't read a word at a time... every typical line of text is taken in with 2 or 3 eye focal points and the meaning of each group of words is determined in a single chunk. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saccade#Reading
I'm not a native, but lived in the US for a quarter century. I think you're correct that that "lagged behind" is the correct version, but if you replaced "lagged" with "trailed" it would also be correct without the "behind". Language is very fluid and always evolving, so using "lagged" as one would previously have used "trailed" may soon be considered correct usage.
Note also that these aren't really questions of grammar (syntax) but meaning (semantics). Does "lagged" mean the same thing as "trailed" in this kind of construction? It didn't some decades ago, but maybe it does today. Or will tomorrow.
From the livescience article linked by another poster: biofilm produced by sulfur-eating bacteria, which in turn metabolize sulfur from the sulfur-rich stream in the cave.
So the whole food-chain here is: sulfur -> bacteria -> midges -> spiders.
> The environment, too, is unusually protected. The cave is hard to reach and is filled with foul-smelling hydrogen sulfide gas, in concentrations too great for most animals to live there.
> There would have been a small number of installations in 1996, but absolutely negligible.
On HN there's always a good chance you're talking to some of the people involved in those "negligible" installations. I know that I submitted some patches to Tatu Ylönen for Ssh to compile on Ultrix, so that must have been in 1995 or early 1996 because after that I didn't have access to any Ultrix machines. I may have been an early adopter, but it didn't take long for ssh to take over the world, at least among Unix system administrators; at Usenix within a year everybody was using ssh because there wasn't any alternative and in terms of security it was a life-saver.
As for the RSA patent... I don't know what license the original Ssh was released under, but it was considered "freeware" when it came out and nobody cared about the US RSA patent. Maybe technically in the USA you shouldn't have used it? Nobody cared.
And the mouse-jiggling thing... not specifically a PuttyGen thing. On linux /dev/random device gave you a few bits at a time stingily, only after it had enough entropy, so it was common for programs that needed good randomness to ask you to jiggle the mouse because that was one of the sources of entropy, so bits random bits would come faster. I'm pretty sure that was still the case well into the Zips.
so I was running a SVN server in a decommissioned PC somewhere in a startup as an intern. whole company ends up using it and out of nowhere it used to freeze, I would go to check if it had rebooted or crashed and everything was fine.
it fixed by itself, without any fixes from my part. happened many times.
asked for help to a senior, guy ran strace and found a read waiting in /dev/random. and of course it solved by itself any time I checked because I was moving the mouse!
controversially but acceptably, we had linked it to urandom and move on
how fast that guy used strace and analyzed the syscalls inspired me to be better at linux
> it didn't take long for ssh to take over the world
That doesn't seem to be accurate. Wikipedia says, by the end of "2000 the number of users had grown to 2 million"
> everybody was using ssh because there wasn't any alternative
I already listed TWO of the most popular alternatives.
> the mouse-jiggling thing... not specifically a PuttyGen thing. On linux
Parent specifically said "windows client installation." Putty was very common on Windows. PuttyGen specifically and prominently told the user to move their mouse... etc. etc.
The propulsion of nuclear-powered aircraft carriers isn't electric... it's driven directly from the steam produced by the reactors.
Edit: At least that's the case for US Nimitz-class aircraft carriers. Nuclear submarines apparently come in both types, with electric motors or direct drive steam-turbines, but I guess this ferry is bigger than any of those.
In generalized, abstract sort of way it's probably accurate, but in reality most neurons don't look much like that and many have dendrites orders of magnitude longer than the one in that image. Stringing all your dendrites end-to-end they can probably easily go to the moon and back.
Not all skin cancers are caused by UV exposure, and in particular acral lentiginous melanoma, which is what killed Bob Marley, almost certainly never is.
> The [human] brain seems to be hundreds of thousands to millions of times more energy efficient than any kind of current AI
I don't know about that... I've consumed quite a few calories in my lifetime directly, plus there is all the energy needed for me to live in a modern civilization and make the source material available to me for learning (schools, libraries, internet) and I still only have a minuscule fraction of the information in my head that a modern LLM does after a few months of training.
Translated into KWh, I've used very roughly 50,000 KWh just in terms of food calories... but a modern human uses between 20x and 200x as much energy in supporting infrastructure than the food calories they consume, so we're at about 1 to 10 GWh, which according to GPT5 is in the ballpark for what it took to train GPT3 or GPT4... GPT5 itself needing about 25x to 30x as much energy to train... certainly not 100s of thousands to millions of times as much. And again, these LLMs have a lot more information encoded into them available for nearly instant response than even the smartest human does, so we're not really comparing apples with apples here.
In short, while I wouldn't rule out that the brain uses quantum effects somehow, I don't think there's any spectacular energy-efficiency there to bolster that argument.
> plus there is all the energy needed for me to live in a modern civilization and make the source material available to me for learning (schools, libraries, internet)
To be fair, this is true of LLMs too, and arguably more true for them than it is for humans. LLMs would've been pretty much impossible to achieve w/o massive amounts of digitized human-written text (though now ofc they could be bootstrapped with synthetic data).
> but a modern human uses between 20x and 200x as much energy in supporting infrastructure than the food calories they consume, so we're at about 1 to 10 GWh, which according to GPT5 is in the ballpark for what it took to train GPT3 or GPT4
But if we're including all the energy for supporting infrastructure for humans, shouldn't we also include it for GPT? Mining metals, constructing the chips, etc.? Also, the "modern" is carrying a lot of the weight here. Pre-modern humans were still pretty smart and presumably nearly as efficient in their learning, despite using much less energy.
reply