Parallel streaming video ingestion of live events, chunking up the video, sending it to Gemini Pro to get get the context/narrative/transcription/sentiment, and alerting for various things.
To be fair, even the National Audubon Society Field Guide to North American Mushrooms tells you that if you follow it without knowing what you're doing your going to get poisoned.
coca-cola's statement is technically true but intentionally misleading, and a lot of people are commenting based on the misconception that coca leaf doesn't contain cocaine
coca leaf does contain cocaine; cocaine is not a molecule synthesized from something in the coca leaf in the way that methamphetamine is synthesized from natural pseudoephedrine. the coca leaf contains cocaine in doses significant enough to be psychoactive, which is why people 'chew' it and make tea from it. when people make refined cocaine from coca leaf, they're just concentrating the cocaine already present, not chemically changing it, except that they may change it between the free base alkakoid form and a salt with some anion like chloride
coca-cola, like several other drinks of the era such as vin mariani, contained an extract of coca leaf containing a therapeutically significant dose of cocaine. it is true that it did not contain cocaine as an ingredient, but saying that and then not explaining that it did contain cocaine is lying by omission. in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41135533 bawolff gives the excellent analogy of saying that sugar is not an ingredient in orange juice: true, but the majority of the non-water content of orange juice is still sugar
It's like a fruit juice saying "no added sugar". They don't add any sugar to the juice but it's definitely not sugar-free. Same with old coke, they never added cocaine but it wasn't cocaine-free.
From TFA: “That same year [1901], Candler called for a change to the Coca-Cola formula, replacing cocaine with heavier doses of sugar and caffeine—and started denying that the soda had ever contained cocaine to begin with.”
It depends on how you define an "ingredient" and "made with". Was pure cocaine added to the original Coca-Cola during manufacturing? No. Was cocaine one of the naturally occurring substances in coca leaf extract that was put in Coke? Yes.
The FDA considers caffeine an ingredient in things like soda and energy drinks because it's dosed and added to the beverage. But the FDA doesn't consider the naturally occurring caffeine in coffee beans as an ingredient in something like coffee beans or a canned cold brew. A manufacturer might list caffeine content to help consumers but they aren't required to do so.
Is gluten an ingredient in flour? Not to the FDA but it's still in there. Is sugar an ingredient in fresh squeezed orange juice? No but it's still in there.
It's correct to say the processed powdery form of cocaine was never added.
But actually cocaine was intentionally added, as a byproduct of adding Coca.
More complete excerpt:
> Before the criminalization of cocaine, however, the extract was not decocainized, and hence Coca-Cola's original formula did indeed include cocaine.
You can still get a buzz off chewing raw coca leaf, but it's not in the same ballpark as doing a line in NYC, SV, or Miami. I recall from Drugs Inc, it's more like a caffeine effect when consumed this way.
The funny thing is that the slideshow at the bottom of the page gives anyone with even a limited knowledge of alkali extraction (like DMT acid-base) everything they need to know about extracting cocaine.
You cannot market orange juice as sugar free. Only "No sugar added"
"Sugar Free" is based entirely on the amount of sugar per serving size of finished product. It does not care where the sugar came from. Any product that contains less than 0.5 grams of sugar per serving can be labeled "Sugar Free".
This has the fun outcome that tiny candies made entirely of sugar can be sold as "Sugar Free"
Disagree, it's like saying that jet fuel doesn't have plastic in it. They're both made from crude oil but they are totally different and do not contain one another.
Coca-Cola is still made with coca leaf, but today, it's decocainized. (And since it's impossible to remove 100% of the cocaine molecules from the coca leaf, Coca-Cola still contains extremely tiny trace amounts of cocaine.)
> That same year, Candler called for a change to the Coca-Cola formula, replacing cocaine with heavier doses of sugar and caffeine—and started denying that the soda had ever contained cocaine to begin with.
Every time I've taken the tour at the Coca-Cola museum in Atlanta, the question has come up and they consistently deny it. I think next time I'll ask the question as whether or not Coco leaves were included in the original formula. I'll bet I get the wrong answer.
"Is it true that prior to aggressive anti-drug legislation, the cocoa leaf extract that was used in coca-cola was not specifically de-cocainized thereby causing coca-cola to possibly contain quantities of cocaine that were possibly significant to the consumer?"
Idk, just lawyer proof the question as much as possible..
I one presented a p75 result of some work as "a 60% improvement" and got direct feedback that it was not a very impressive figure. However when they realized what I really meant was a "2.5x improvement" their eyes lit up.
I've asked around and people generally seem to prefer the bigger, sexier number. I don't care too much either way so I just go with the flow. Shrug.
Years ago A&W rolled out a “1/3 pound” burger to compete with McDonald’s quarter pounder, but it failed miserably despite being priced the same and rating higher in blind taste tests. Why? Because people perceive 1/4 to be larger than 1/3.
I am also annoyed by most modern tech marketing using percentages incorrectly and inconsistently. But 150% is a bigger number than 1.5x so I suppose their hands are tied.
They're speaking to the lay community. The lay community is not known for using precise language. If they had used language like yours, the lay community probably wouldn't have received the key message: "10x better".
On the other side, it seems clear that the scientific community was able to deduce the intended meaning of "10x fewer".
I actually don't believe ChatGPT made this mistake. Maybe one of their engs made it and then decided to blame ChatGPT. I can't get ChatGPT to reproduce this error. I wonder what their prompt was.
I use ChatGPT constantly and it is not the type of error it would make. It is such a common pattern.
And if you ask GPT-4o whether the code is correct, it is able to spot the issue.
> I can't get ChatGPT to reproduce this error. I wonder what their prompt was.
They were having it translate NextJS code to Python, so the prompt probably included their NextJS code (actually, since they’d never turned on the feature that led to them realizing the problem in NextJS, and maybe didn't have enough volume to hit it on the other pathways that the Python code had it on, it’s not implausible the same bug existed in their NextJS code but was never triggered, and ChatGPT just translated the bug. But in any case, their prompt would include their proprietary code to translate.)
