DXM may or may not suppress coughing relative to placebo - the study cited here appears to be have been written entirely by authors from drug companies, so perhaps there is some bias. Here's a meta analysis that favors honey over DXM https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32817011/, the original study that kicked off this idea that also favors honey https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18056558/, and a different meta analysis https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6513626/ which found little or no difference between honey and DXM. Whether its effective or not, to me there doesn't seem to be compelling evidence that it is more effective than honey.
Not totally accurate - there are a handful of foaming agents and surfactants that are mixed and matched to make shampoos, so really it's nearly the same except that no one has ever overdosed on applying too much sodium lauryl sulfate to their scalp.
For reference, a PlayStation 5 is $600-650 for the base models (lower performance than Steam Machine) and $900 for the Pro model (likely higher performance). I know this is a PC and thus an open platform, but for most buyers in living room gaming, that's the competition. I don't think this will reach mass market success, but I'm not sure that was the goal. Who are they selling to?
Note: I ask as someone with a Steamdeck sitting on the desk in front of me and a custom-built computer under my TV running Linux.
That's interesting. I gave nearly the same task to Gemma4 31b as a test yesterday. Write a symbolic math engine in Typescript that can perform evaluation and simple expression reductions over +-/*(). It performed the task correctly with minimal reasoning - much fewer reasoning tokens than output tokens.
I just don't want to have to have a pipeline going in order to fully occupy my time. I don't want to wait on the model to review the prompt, read the parts of the codebase indicated, do its own research in the codebase and documentation, plan, run agents ... actually write the code and NOW I can start reading it and reviewing it. That means I either need to run a lot of operations in parallel so that I always have something to do and the agent(s) are highly utilized or I'm writing something on my own that I keep getting that keeps getting interrupted. It's the constant context switching that kills me. I want to work on one problem at a time and really focus on it - even if I'm not writing every line myself.
Yes - I want that and dramatically faster. Newer models don't seem to need any more or less guidance and iteration, so let's make the time-to-wrong-answer as short as possible.
Musk sold Twitter into xAI which he then sold into SpaceX as a financial engineering effort to lessen the impact of massive debts and cash burn. The IPO and some clever structuring is the final step in the process.
My Nissan Ariya checks nearly every box. The controls for the AC have dedicated buttons, but they are capacitive, not tactile. Anyway, love the car. It's a real shame that they aren't selling them in the US anymore.
Making these claims on a 2B parameter model seems a bit like seeing linear scalability from 1 to 4 cores and then assuming 256 cores will give you a 256x speedup. Or demonstrating massive improvement on datasets that fit in cache and then assuming the same improvements will be present on problem sizes that span the memory of multiple machines. Something tells me that scaling to larger models will be more difficult than assumed.
Maybe - let's assume that we could simulate a human brain to a high level of fidelity starting from a known good state and emulate its input and output. Do you think we could poke at it enough and ask the simulated person about their experience enough to discover the mechanisms behind what we experience as a soul? It's logistically and computationally insanely complex to pull off, but if we could build such a system, I don't see why we couldn't eventually figure it out in another thousand years' time (assuming we don't destroy ourselves or do something that sets back the evolution of technology massively between now and then).
Any solution that involves having to use a keyword to get the value returned from a function is such a poor design choice to me. Nearly every time I call a function I don't want to have to care if it is synchronous or not. I want the syntax and grammar (and illusion?) of one continuous thread of execution. The few times where I explicitly want to not wait are the places that should be special. This is why new languages should build in green threading from the start.
Being the least bad doesn't make something good. macOS is the least bad choice for the majority of people that just want a machine to mostly browse the Internet, look at their photos, do some light productivity work, and participate in their ecosystem. It also arguably hosts has the best software options for creative work (although that's reaping the fruits of seeds planted long ago - not sure there's much about macOS that makes it inherently better for those tasks these days). For development, its advantage is the hardware it's running on. To achieve any level of customization or to define my own workflow that isn't what Apple wants me to do or to work across multiple systems, I have to fight macOS rather than work with it. Linux on the other hand does what I tell it to do.
[ my public key: https://keybase.io/robmccoll; my proof: https://keybase.io/robmccoll/sigs/rFoGh_YBcy3PiVvcUp7vfPqM_pDQqXXNuHrkyeB756I ]