Since we’re being extra pedantic, what I said was:

As long as the tanker weights less than the weight of all that water it displaced, it will float.

This is factually true, and you didn’t disprove it.

As for “boat wall sticking out of the water”, that’s just grasping at straws man. If that boat is fully waterproof, like a submarine, the definition holds up. Or if you consider that water entering the boat adds to the boat weight, then again it will hold true as it will weigh more than the water it displaces.

Heading for the top, that’s me. Of an office building or psychiatric ward, remains to be seen.

The bane of shipping is that a lot of money goes to shipping air around :)

I thought you were talking about the “regular” rubbers, for pencil. Those rubbers are more “grippy” than paper, so the graphite particles will stick to it.

This doesn’t work for ink, of course, and those rough rubbers literally scratch the paper with ink off of page.

Well… When you put one of those huge tankers in the water, it will move a LOT of water out of the way.

As long as the tanker weights less than the weight of all that water it displaced, it will float.

As you keep loading up the tanker with more cargo, it will go deeper into the water right? But this means that it is pushing more water out of the way (the water that used to be where the boat now is), which balances out the weight because that creates more buoyancy.

A rock, on the other hand, is heavier than the water that it displaces, so it sinks like a tanker whose front fell off.

A good point, but I’m not sure that’s where the bar is. How does it compare to other self-driving systems that have lidar, for instance?

The problem is that responsibilities seem to grow faster than I can create coping mechanisms…

To be fair, I’ve read that Sandfall also outsourced a lot of work for Expedition 33, which is how they’ve kept the team small.

I see no issues with outsourcing if done right: not every small developer needs to have a motion capture crew, etc.

If there are companies out there that can provide that for you at a reasonable cost, then you just need to focus on the core gameplay and the artistic aspects of your game.

This way you don’t bloat your headcount with hundreds of people that you’ll have to sack after the project is done, seems like a win for everybody.

Hahah, that’s fair!

Thank you for the exchange brother, I learned more about mercury in GSMNP than I thought I ever would.

Ah yes, the “round to 9” method. That one is a worldwide plague.

I’ve seen displays with the lower sized digits, but usually it’s the cents: €149^.99

Adding fractions of a cent to a price display is just so… avaricious. (I’m sure there’s a more common word for this but I could find it)

Huh interesting. Thank you for the insight.

I expect your average guard would be weak to slashing or bludgeon too, UST goes to show how wise barbarians are.

So the price of unleaded is 2.74 + 9/10 of a cent?

Isnt that just 2.749? Why show it as a fraction?

Sorry, I’m really confused.

Edit: Oh, is this to accommodate other fractions like 3/4 or 7/9?

What’s the 9/10 after the price?

From the article referenced in your news source:

_JAMA Pediatrics and the NEJM were accessed for pediatric case challenges (N = 100). The text from each case was pasted into ChatGPT version 3.5 with the prompt List a differential diagnosis and a final diagnosis. _

A couple of key points:

• These are case challenges, which are usually meant to be hard. I could find no comparison to actual physician results in the article, which would have been nice.
• More importantly however: it was conducted in June 2023, and used GPT-3.5. GPT-4 improved substantially upon it, especially for complex scientific or scientific problems, and this shows in the newer studies that have used it.

I don’t think anyone’s advocating that an AI will replace doctors, much like it won’t replace white collar jobs either.

But if it helps achieve better outcomes for the patients, like the current research seems to indicate, aren’t you sworn to consider it in your practice?

I’m not knowledgeable enough to carry this conversation, but I was curious if GPT could add anything of value.

This is it’s follow-up:

That’s actually a really compelling angle, even if the methods are intentionally provocative. It gets at a deeper question—how far are we willing to go, ecologically speaking, to address human health risks that stem from environmental contaminants like mercury? I think the strength of your proposal isn’t in the literal feasibility but in the way it frames trade-offs between conservation and public health.

Also, using periphyton biomass as a kind of biotic buffer is a clever systems-level approach. It’s rarely the first thing people think of when talking about mercury mitigation, which usually focuses on source reduction. But tweaking food web dynamics to manage contaminant transfer is a really underexplored strategy. I imagine even just modeling it could lead to some useful insights, especially if you layered in things like flow regime changes or climate impacts on riparian shading.

And yeah, totally agree—GSMNP is such a tightly protected space that even suggesting fertilizer additions or canopy thinning sounds borderline heretical. But as a thought experiment, it’s valuable. It forces the conversation about what kinds of interventions we’re not considering simply because they clash with aesthetic or cultural norms, not necessarily because they’re scientifically unsound.

I really have no idea if it’s just spewing nonsense, so do educate me :)

Could you provide references? I’m genuinely interested, and what I found seems to say differently:

Overall, GPT-4 passed the board residency examination in four of five specialties, revealing a median score higher than the official passing score of 65%.

AI NEJM

Also I believe you’re seriously underestimating the abilities of present day LLMs. They are able to ask relevant follow up questions, as well as interpreting that information to request additional studies, and achieve accurate diagnosis.

See here a study specifically on conversational diagnosis AIs. It has some important limitations, crucially from having to work around the text interface which is not ideal, but otherwise achieved really interesting results.

Call them “idiot machines” all you want, but I feel this is going down the same path as full self driving cars - eventually they’ll be doing less errors than humans, and that will save lives.

True.

But doctors also screw up diagnosis, medication, procedures. I mean, being human and all that.

I think it’s a given that AI outperforms in medical exams -be it multiple choice or open ended/reasoning questions.

Theres also a growing body of literature with scenarios where AI produces more accurate diagnosis than physicians, especially in scenarios with image/pattern recognition, but even plain GPT was doing a good job with clinical histories, getting the accurate diagnostic with it’s #1 DxD, and even better when given lab panels.

Another trial found that patients who received email replies to their follow-up queries from AI or from physicians, found the AI to be much more empathetic, like, it wasn’t even close.

Sure, the AI has flaws. But the writing is on the wall…

I mean, are you sure?

Studies in the GSMNP have looked at:

• Mercury levels in fish: Especially in high-elevation streams, where even remote waters can show elevated levels of mercury in predatory fish due to biomagnification.

• Benthic macroinvertebrates and amphibians: As indicators of mercury in aquatic food webs.

• Forest soils and leaf litter: As long-term mercury sinks that can slowly release mercury into waterways.

If GPT and I were being graded on the subject, it wouldn’t be the machine flunking…

To be fair, facts come second to many humans as well, so I dont know if you have much of a point there…