That is a cynically opportunistic, anti-scientific article with a clickbait title, with many scathing critiques within the scientific community.
https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.newsweek.com%2F2014%2F...

If you're confused about this, get onto scholar.google.com and do some serious reading from the world of real research, instead of what sold some guy's book.

What Dr. Saul wrote flies in the face of decades in research. ADHD is visible in multiple variations on fast MRIs - executive frontal lobes of the brain doze, while other parts of the brain run perhaps to overdrive. This is the mind of a professor who's expert in some field but never did their laundry. Those who are accurately diagnosed with it respond differently, even the opposite of what you'd expect of neurotypical people, because the brains are structured different. ADHD students calm down when given stimulants precisely because their executive function wakes up.

What the original post here is dealing with is another problem: privileged students getting dubious diagnoses and weaponizing them. That is nothing new, not for any disability, and it's offensive and predatory on the support systems actual people need. Nobody argues that bonespurs aren't real, or that rich jerks don't use their money to get a fake diagnosis to cut corners in life the not-wealthy can't.

The difference between repair work and a wrecking crew has everything to do with the order of operations.

Identifying candidates is *not* the first step for someone serious about repairing the USA's political system. It's the design of elections and representation at issue that needs repair. Fielding candidates in a broken system is like dumping diesel into a regular car engine - get that right, first. For example, the overwhelming number of Green Parties around the world asked Jill Stein to stop running for reason. To promote the GPUSA is *not* to be in agreement with Green Parties worldwide; instead, it's a deliberate strategic error, hardly distinguishable from sabotage.

I'm all for more plurality. Even if I totally like a candidate in the two party system, I want a robust system with plans B and C and D for all of us next election, and my fellow citizens to have a shot at full representation. I want a system like Australia's in the USA where there are no primary elections, just ranked choice voting for the candidates - giving the voters more say, avoiding "split the vote" issues. Other reforms in a more proportional / parliamentary direction can follow.

Setting the rules of fair elections with decent choices needs serious work starting today, not election day.

It's not intelligence. It is not acquiring new behaviors and ideas, but regurgitating old ones in ways it often cannot verify or test. That detachment from reality flies with management, but the rack-and-file can't afford such liabilities.

We don't need large-scale language models to generate sophisticated fabrications. We need small, efficiently fluent interfaces between humans and proven tools and data. The market is going to have to correct to the actual right-sized value of the technology.

You can tell that the next giant solar flare is going to flatten this whole house of cards.

... was how to disable it.

Nothing would make it “help get a little closer to making it a reality” if it’s not physically possible, and there’s a very strong argument that that’s the case. If nothing else, the maximum specific tensile strength allowed by covalent bonding - which is fundamental physics that we can’t change - combined with the reality of defects in a 36,000 km cable - is far below what’s needed to build a space elevator in Earth gravity. It might be possible to build a space elevator on the Moon or even (in the far future) on Mars, because their gravity is such that real materials could potentially do the job. But doing that involves bootstrapping an entire offworld industry, which is far beyond anything even the most advanced nations are capable of currently, let alone a technologically stunted oil state.

There’s no chance they’d actually succeed in building a space elevator. The Line is at least theoretically physically possible with current technology, even if it was always an obviously spectacularly bad idea. A space elevator is not.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

But three lefts do.

I think they mean sink.

as long as the topic is not controversial and political.

The problem is that the Wiki mods are VERY VERY biased. Not just a little. I have run into this personally just trying to make very simple edits. They would not accept simple facts that I had backup sources for.

This was just for movie credits for an actress that at some point had turned conservative...

So for anything political, Wikipide will be factually wrong, sometimes (or often) egregiously so.

But that's ok if it's only for political content right???

But there's the trouble you see. It affects what is political TO THEM in ways you cannot comprehend, so ANY page might be touched by the corruption of the Wikipedia moderator biases. I wouldn't think a simply actress filmography would be affected yet it was. No visitor other than that page would ever know it was inaccurate or incomplete.

So you can trust absolutely nothing from Wikipedia without extensive checking of what facts they refuse to list. Which makes the entire body of work garbage - I have not used it for years now.

Yeah, I wouldn't want one of these if it were free.

This will flop.

> Come back when it's 3x3 and I'll buy one.

Yeah, but it will cost $1500.

A more interesting question I think is, does anyone own this AI actress?

That is to say - if a company took her likeness, and used other AI to make porn - could "her" agent sue them?

Or in other words, is a purely AI generated likeness even copyrightable, when technically no human made it?

https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2F...

PointCast... memory unlocked. There's a name I haven't heard in like 30 years.

I agree with you that everything old is new again, often something that wasn't as successful as it could have been and companies are trying to make the idea work. VR has been in that category for almost 4 decades, and it still is.