Find people in her field who are already hopping on the wave. Better still, gently persuade her to find those people. She'll probably know where to look. In fact, I'd be surprised if her professional newsletters aren't already starting to surface those folks.
I'm unsure of how this information is being presented. But it's entirely possible for the majority of people on Earth to avoid all those things. And it's entirely possible for many people who are (perhaps unwittingly) funding U.S. defense companies to stop doing so.
Polymarket gamblers have pressured at least one journalist regarding reporting of missile strikes. This requires regulation or, as others here have suggested, non-anonymity, maybe other measures too.
A crossword puzzle generator, just for fun. Grid generator in Python because it's easy to hack around and grid generation doesn't need to be particularly fast. Go for populating the grid with words because with large grids there are combinatorial explosions, and Go's speed is beneficial.
Not source-available yet because it's a bunch of hacks (particularly the Python) but maybe one day.
"FFF stands for freakin fast fuzzy file finder (pick 3) and it is an opinionated fuzzy file picker for your AI agent and Neovim. Just for file search, but we do the file search really fff well.
FFF is a tool for grepping, fuzzy file matching, globbing, and multigrepping with a strong focus on performance and useful search results. For humans - provides an unbelievable typo-resistant experience, for AI agents - implements the fastest file search with additional free memory suggesting the best search results based on various factors like frecency, git status, file size, definition matches, and more."
I feel this sneaking up on me. I've only recently allowed Claude to actually edit some files directly, rather than just show me suggested edits. It could certainly be addictive to just hit enter while code magically appears, thinking "oh yeah, I totally would have done it like that".
So let's say there's a causative link (see other comments here for why this may not be the case), it would take a lifetime of daily complex spatial navigation for several hours every day to significantly reduce Alzheimer's disease risk, and it's still not guaranteed. If there's a linear dose response (a big if) it would still require hours per week for decades for a more modest impact.
That seems unattainable for anyone at all.
Man, Alzheimer's disease sucks. We need more investment and more research into this horrible illness.
Personally I'm curious about the impact of super-early diagnosis, decades before symptoms, and interventions that maximally slow progress.
I'm not so sure. It's definitely the de facto standard, but I suspect minimal HTML is better. Just enough tags to add structure and meaning (H1-H6, p, a, em, section for structure including nesting, maybe more). LLMs were trained on a lot of HTML, they're good at processing it. HTML requires more tokens than markdown but I believe it's worth it. I'll find out in a few weeks as I experiment with both.
Whether you can or can't in reality is moot, unfortunately. The literature search in biomedical fields should indeed be theoretically reproducible. I don't know about other fields, but it would seem odd to me if a search was not reproducible, that would lead to a very arbitrary literature selection.
As for the experiments, yes, in experimental fields. But in all (most?) fields, including non-experimental, the whole process should be well documented so it could be reproduced end-to-end if possible. If it's not reproducible there should be good, well explained reasons why not.
Note that reproduciblity does not necessarily mean the exact same answer will definitely emerge, just that the methods can be followed closely.
Quite probably there are differences between fields. In biomedical literature reviews the search terms and databases are detailed, and (in systematic reviews) a PRISMA flowchart [0] provided. The theory being that other researchers could repeat the searches and the in/out decisions and get the same stack of papers to review.