Another "gift" from AI to the world. Another line to the long list of "minor side effects" from uncontrolled, unapollogetic corporations releasing radical technology into a world that didn't agree to it.
TBH it was already possible before, but you'd need to either write templates or find competent low-cost ghostwriters. AI has made it easier and more accessible to do this kind of thing.
I wouldn't be surprised if the institutions or projects like CURL will create harsher measures to stop this flood of high-quality spam, like putting people on a list or requiring payment per submission.
I mean that last one isn't a bad thing, Apple did something like it years ago and I think asking for an upfront cost and having a strict (at the time) review program made it so that all apps were from serious developers and met minimum quality standards.
Agree. Before 2010, I read a get-rich-quick affiliate marketing book telling you to use an automated tool to publish SEO spam about goldfish about to 200 blogs.
Using psychedelics, specifically 2C-B and LSD, you can also see very saturated colors you don't normally see in daily life. I see very saturated magentas.
I realise that, I’m just speculating on when the effect emerges. Whether it’s because of changes in the cones (which are the tips of nuerons) or a later emergent property.
Most likely an emergent property. Psychedelics affect serotonin pathways, I don't think that cone cells and the first layers of neurons behind them have serotonin receptors.
"Seeing" starts pretty much at the retina level and along the optic nerve. Lots of signal processing and data compression going on there. I wouldn't be surprised if hallucinogens affect those areas as well.
Everything is quite intense that way with 2C-B, very very rich, but in a more psilocybin way than LSD. 2C-B is super weird, I find it hard to pinpoint what it is about 2C-B that is so unique among the phenethylamines/tryptamines.
I also had an encounter with government software...
I think the long-lasting solution will be to move to a web-based application system, instead of depending on Desktop applications made for Windows or Linux. Using a web app system, the government only has to concern itself with proper development and maintenance of servers and web apps, and the public workers can use any operating system with a web browser.
Considering I'm working as a contractor for a local govt, working on a system that probably should be deployed to linux/containers, but I'm stuck on a locked down copy of windows with deployments going to Windows Servers. I can't even use WSL/Docker on my issued laptop.
The transparent proxy for all http(s) requests has been fun for some cli tools as well.
isn't TFA about how the problem is cloud-infrastructure? web-app will only make that worse unless you're thinking something like adobe air.
Also, as others already noted, somehow the web is uniquely terrible at maintaining compatibility across not only different platforms but different versions of the same platform and even different versions of the same browser, despite being built largely on top of high-level languages that all claim to enable effortless portability.
I agree with this. When it comes to domain-specific b2b software, pretty much everything that doesn't require native resources or performance inaccessible from the web platform should provide a web-based frontend (even if just as a minimum).
And that would be better why exactly? Bloated browsers trying to phone home, even if only to search for updates, or denying access because of overblocking DNS, false software security signatures, whatever? Ja. Klasse! I fucking know about Electron & Tauri. And V8, Node, Bun, TS. Hmmm so geil. Da steht mir der Schwanz steil. Oder auch einfach nur die Haare zu Berge.
Don't you see that the future is XML SOAP RPCs? If you don't master this new technology now, you'll be left behind!!
Then again, maybe I'm too old now and being left behind if I remember the old hype like this....
The entirety of the tech field is constantly hyping the current technology out of FOMO. Whether or not it works out in the future it's always the same damn argument.
>smart phones became a fixture because they were a key enabler for dozens of other things like fitness tracking fads, logging into key services, communication methods that were not available on desktop, etc. If AI becomes a key enabler of business, then yeah people won't have a choice.
This. I need access to banking , maps and 2FA. If I could use a dumb phone, with just a camera, GPS and whatsapp, I would use it.
Access to banking is indeed critical, but when? And for 2FA, which accounts, and when? As bank apps become more invasive and they also fail to offer substantive 2FA (e.g. the forcing of text messaging as a 2FA option falls outside my risk tolerance), I've segmented my devices' access.
The ability to transfer funds is something I'm now fine doing via a dedicated device with a dedicated password manager account, and I'm fine uninstalling banks' apps from my phone and dis-enrolling cell phone numbers.
Given the wanton collection and sale of my data by many entities I hadn't expected (naivety on my part), I've restricted access to critical services by device and or web browser only. It's had the added bonus of making me more purposeful in what I'm doing, albeit at the expense of a convenience. Ultimately, I'm not saying my approach is right for everyone, but for me it's felt great to take stock of historical behavior and act accordingly.
I bought my first smartphone in 2020 after my old compact camera died, and I couldn't find a replacement to buy because they had been supplanted by smartphones.
I'm guessing they were looking for preferential delivery to certain cell types, and AAVs just happened to have best profile for those. If anything, LNPs might aggregate in the liver even more than AAVs, which can lead to even worse hepatotoxicity if an immune response happens.
Lipid nanoparticle toxicity has long been an industry concern.
In a profile of Moderna back in 2016, Katalin Karikó (instrumental in the development of mRNA vaccines) mentioned this issue:
“I would say that mRNA is better suited for diseases where treatment for short duration is sufficiently curative, so the toxicities caused by delivery materials are less likely to occur” [1]
This gene therapy involves a gene called dystrophin, which is one of if not the largest gene in the human genome. Sarepta is actually using a version called microdystrophin, which is a truncated version. It still barely fits into AAV.
Reasons to use AAV: they're going for sustained production of the therapeutic gene, and AAVs are better at doing that than LNPs. LNPs were used in the mRNA COVID vaccine, because they're great at transient production.
To get stable production from an LNP you'd likely have to integrate into the genome, which risks cancer from disrupting oncogenes. You'd also need to package the therapeutic gene with a mechanism of integrating into the genome, like recombinase.
> National Institutes of Health officials have urged scientists to remove all references to mRNA vaccine technology from their grant applications, two researchers said, in a move that signaled the agency might abandon a promising field of medical research.
