* Given that for-profits can be given tax-breaks for (hopefully) good reasons [which are not altruistic];
* therefore non-profits can be given tax-breaks for (hopefully) good reasons [which are not altruistic].
A defense contractor designing missile guidance qualifies for the Exempt Purpose of "scientific."
A megachurch with a private jet qualifies under its "religious" category.
These do not specifically require altruistic intent. Congress chose to subsidize certain categories of activity (religious, scientific, educational, and so on) because it wanted more of that activity produced, regardless of the motives of the people doing it.
For example, ask your favorite LLM search engine: Can you list non-profits/501(c)(3) that are US defense contractors?
Draper Laboratory and Energetics Technology Center are registered 501(c)(3) corporations. Their primary output is weapons research. RAND Corp, whose name you'd likely recognize, is also a DoD contractor and 501(c)(3).
The NRA Foundation and the Heritage Foundation are also registered as 501(c)(3).
1st, this is unlike CAR-T as there is no extraction, engineering on that extraction, and then reinjection.
2nd, the only injection is intravenous. It uses a kind of virus that has been specifically engineered to cross the blood-brain barrier. That virus has a payload which infects/alters astrocytes already inside the brain, and the astrocytes become aggressive at clearing amyloid plaques.
3rd, I agree that the road to a marketable therapeutic could be a long way off.
@strcat, you've mentioned GrapheneOS will have access to internal code to do hardening below the OS layer. Does this mean Motorola devices will offer stronger security than Pixels, where you're limited by what Google exposes?
Is Motorola contributing engineering resources directly to GrapheneOS, or is the partnership purely about hardware enablement on their side?
The dealbreaker was data usage for AI training, not UI:
"We are going to use your email to train our LLMs. I'm not okay with that... my confidential commercial information is NOT okay to use to train your models [...] So... goodbye Gmail."
No, you probably haven't read the conversation piece. The post is ultimately about switching providers because Google's service crosses a line from (1) targeted advertising to (2) using personal and confidential information for model training.
A service to clean up the UI does nothing to solve the issue at hand.
I wouldn't apply the usual "but mice" appeal to purity in this case.
For one, the paper specifically studied brain structures that are directly homologous in both mice and humans (retrosplenial cortex). The researchers specifically targeted evolutionarily-conserved circuitry.
Second, there is already human research on the topic, too, and this paper is reporting on a likely mechanism to understand "why" rather than "if." Here's one from a Yale researcher:
This law demands a surveillance architecture, not just porn regulation. Once the norm and mechanism to de-anonymize content use exists, it can be expanded to any content, including political dissent, and for both accessing AND contributing to content (like, for example, on HN). The line should be drawn here.
The vague potential harm of sex doesn't justify the concrete harm of abolishing digital privacy. Further, it's just sex. Equating imagery of legal, natural activity with physical danger is an error.
It is blatantly dangerous to justify stripping citizens of their anonymity. The lawmakers who proposed this are oppressors. They are the danger to our children.
I am not challenging the safety release mechanism. The OP already demonstrated that.
I am challenging the result of that release in your poorly framed experiment.
You explicitly sought to test 'a different side of the spectrum.' You cannot equate a holistic character judgment with a narrowed, specific medical safety protocol judgement.
A clean account without memories will solve the tie-breaker issue. It will not solve the poor experimental design.
That comparison is flawed. You guided the LLM to judge a specific medical policy, whereas the OP asked for a holistic evaluation of the candidates. You created a framing instead of allowing the LLM to evaluate without your input.
Furthermore, admitting you have 'memories' enabled invalidates the test in both cases.
As an aside, I would not expect that one party's candidate is always more correct over the other for every possible issue. Particular issues carry more weight, and the overall correctness should be considered.
> In the United States, a recession is defined as "a significant decline in economic activity spread across the market, lasting more than a few months, normally visible in real GDP, real income, employment, industrial production, and wholesale-retail sales."[4] The European Union has adopted a similar definition.[5][6]
That's interesting, and I think I've seen that writing style before, although it might have been in infosec circles. What do you mean by the mimicry and viewpoints?
It does seem to be used to signal prestige more than in-group membership in general. I perceive it as mildly haughty.
Also, I don't think acrolect is the right term here, because the all-lowercase style is both not a creole and is not a closer approximation to standard English than some lower form of all-lowercase.
If you need a linguistics term call it a register.
Not to be that guy, but feed/enclosure are direct costs.
Externalities are costs/benefits to someone uninvolved with the chicken/egg transaction (noise or free insect control affecting your neighbor are negative and positive cases).