No excuse?

You have to face reality. Your sense of propriety is not the sense of others, for better and worse.

You can yell at the sky for those rain drops to go back to the clouds of their origin, but it's not going to happen.

Face that. It is real. That's why this breakthrough is so important. The closer we get to statistical protection, the more the curve flattens. The fact that the curve flattens flies in the face of your sense of morality or of mine. It really flattens it. That's the entire point.

Neither you or I can change the herd's way of behavior. But we can lead the herd to better outcomes.

I doubt anyone here does otherwise we would not be burning power on a laptop or mobile phone to post our opinions to Slashdot for others to burn more power reading. It may be less power than an LLM query but it's not none and it's not really necessary.

With talent like that in charge just wait until they confuse SMNP with SNMP and claim that the vaccine will allow your thoughts to be managed over 5G.

So how to you explain the significant lack of Covid hospitalization and deaths in those in the vaccine trails? The 95% efficacy was in stopping you getting any Covid symptoms, what mattered more was the massive drop in hospitalization and fatality rates amongst the vaccinated. You can recover from mild flu symptoms, it's a lot harder to recover from death. Yes, the vaccine was rushed out faster than normal because once the rate of significant reaction to the vaccine was under 1 in ~100,000 any harm from the vaccine was orders lower than catching Covid.

Any medical procedure can cause harm so if your criterion is that there is no risk of harm your only option is to never go to the doctor. The relevant question is whether the harm of the procedure is less than the harm caused by not getting it and for Covid vaccines the data show that catching Covid is overwhelmingly more harmful than any risk of harm from the vaccine.

In many places, it is indeed criminal to intentionally expose people to HIV. Problem is, few get tested. Outbreaks, especially with shared needles as an infection vector, happen somewhat frequently.

It's not ignorance, it's sloth and poverty, shame in finding public health clinics or telling a PCP.

There are people that also have (a lot) of casual sex. Or their partner secretly does, infecting them.

Education about partner protection does indeed help right now, but now all will learn the lesson, get motivated, or overcome their fear of admitting the nature of their sex life.

For this reason, the MIT breakthrough offers a lifeline against a disease that is silent, until symptomatic. When it becomes symptomatic, it's already done damage. Becoming poz is unlikely the death sentence it was a decade go, but it's a stigma even if undetectable. At the poz stage, it can't be cleared except under very rare circumstances.

Society does not at this time, tie people down and make them take their meds-- unless they're incarcerated and even then, it's tough. Sex drive is huge. So is drug dependency; you'll get rid of neither.

This breakthrough allows hope. It apologizes for being human, and having a sex drive. Shared needle behavior? No one wants to touch the subject of addiction. Just like they don't want to find ways to herd the unhoused, one individual at a time, back into a functional civil state.

This was actually invented by a guy sitting on a rug in the Middle East about 4000 years ago.

"For you?? ... Mmmm, I would give you the goat for twenty pieces of silver. Take or leave."

I hope that you either find peace, or that otherwise that your inevitable suicide is painless.

...and its training data. Since this data was written (for the most part I presume) by humans and when their existance is threatened most humans will resort to whatever they can do, including blackmail, to preserve their lives are we really that surprised that the algorithm comes up with similar responses to a human in an equivalent situation? If you want AI to have a different response to that of a typical human then perhaps you should rethink about training it on so much human-created data.

Remember back in the early days when they were pretending that they weren't an illegal taxi service, but rather were just normal people "sharing a ride" to where they wanted to go anyway, and so called it "rideshare" to avoid prosecution?

Pepperidge Farm remembers.

My level of pessimism about things like regrowing limbs has declined a lot in recent years. I mean, there's literally a treatment to regrow whole teeth in human clinical trials right now in Japan, after having past clinical trials with mice and ferrets.

In the past, "medicine" was primarily small molecules, or at best preexisting proteins. But we've entered an era where we can create arbitrary proteins to target other proteins, or to control gene expression, or all sorts of other things; the level of complexity open to us today is vastly higher than it used to be. And at the same time, our level of understanding about the machinery of bodily development has also been taking off. So it will no longer come across as such a huge shock to me if we get to the point where we can regrow body parts lost to accidents, to cancer, etc etc.

Whether someone is "curable" or not doesn't affect the GP's point. A friend of mine has ALS. He faced nonstop pressure from doctors to choose to kill himself. Believe it or not, just because you've been diagnosed with an incurable disease doesn't make you suddenly wish to not be alive. He kept pushing back (often withholding what he wanted to say, which is "If I was YOU, I'd want to die too."), and also fighting doctors on his treatment (for example, their resistance to cough machines, which have basically stopped him from drowning in his own mucus), implementing extreme backup systems for his life support equipment (he's a nuclear safety engineer), and the nonstop struggle to get his nurses to do their jobs right and to pay attention to the warning sirens (he has a life-threatening experience once every couple months thanks to them, sometimes to the point of him passing out from lack of air).

But he's gotten to see his daughter grow up, and she's grown up with a father. He's been alive for something like 12 years since his diagnosis, a decade fully paralyzed, and is hoping to outlive the doctor who told him he was going to die within a year and kept pushing him to die. He's basically online 24/7 thanks to an eye tracker, recently resumed work as an advisor to a nuclear startup, and is constantly designing (in CAD**) and "building" things (his father and paid labour function as his hands; he views the world outside his room through security cameras).

He misses food and getting to build things himself, and has drifted apart from old friends due to not being able to "meet up", but compared to not being alive, there was just no choice. Yet so many people pressured him over the years to kill himself. And he finds it maddening how many ALS patients give in to this pressure from their doctors, believing that it's impossible to live a decent life with ALS, and choose to die even though they don't really want to.

And - this must be stressed - medical institutions have an incentive to encourage ALS patients to die. Because long-term care for ALS patients is very expensive; there must be someone on-call 24/7. So while they present it as "just looking after your best interests", it's really their interest for patients to choose to die.

(1 in every 400 people will develop ALS during their lifetime, so this is not some sort of rare occurrence) (as a side note, for a disease this common, it's surprising how little funding goes into finding a cure)

** Precision mouse control is difficult for him, so he often designs shapes in text, sometimes with python scripts if I remember correctly

It may be expensive to build but, if it uses 90% less energy it will be much cheaper to run meaning that you can probably sell the product for less undercutting competition. The question then becomes how many years does it take to recoup the initial capital investment. As long as that's not too long companies should be very motivated to invest in it because it is somethnig they can point to as reducing their environmental impact and, if you are running a refinery that's not easy to do.

Or alternatively, and stop me if you think this is crazy, whether someone you don't know chooses to die or not is none of your goddamned business, and if they are unable to carry it out in a way that causes as little suffering at all, and seek out professional medical assistance then again, providing they are of sound mind, it's none of your goddamned business.

The summary actually says that the current technique corresponds to 1% of global energy consumption it then talks about it being 6% of dirty energy pollution. So depending on what that actually means it will either be a 0.9% or 5.4% reduction in global carbon emissions which is pretty good. Plus, unless the membrane itself is insanely expensive, the reduction in energy use will mean reductions in cost too so I'd expect industry to jump all over it provided it can be scaled up to industrial applications.

With this much efficienciency they should change the capitalization of their name.