I'd like to point out that the first author, Stephanie Seneff, "began publishing controversial papers in low-impact, open access journals on biology and medical topics" with "heated objections from experts in almost every field she's delved into" [1], and that the second author's "Naturopathic Physician" degree is not a very good indicative for experience conducting Immunology (or) medical research.
Yep. Not a single immunologist in authors. The last co-author is Chief Medical Advisor, Truth for Health Foundation, which is a religious antivax nonprofit, I quote directly from their about page:
“We strive to honor God and Jesus Christ in all we do as we conduct business, and to follow Biblical principles exemplified in Jesus’ Healing Ministry throughout the New Testament as we implement health programs for the people we serve.”
I assume you both think the paper's methodology is unimpeachable, since otherwise one of you would have said something about that instead of just making ad hominem attacks.
How is this ad hominem? This is like an article about cardiac health that says that we need to immediately stop administering Aspirin to the entire population written by an OBGYN with a plumber that sells Tylenol as a co-author.
It's an ad hominem because you're saying bad things about the author rather than bad things about the paper. There's a reason that blind reviews for journals exist.
It's unnerving how everything is open at my city as well - except public universities. Some teachers have taken education for recording all their classes and pressing "Send" at the comfort of their home, I guess.
It can also subsist on top of ketone bodies - if fat breakdown is high enough due to a lack of glucose due to fasting or lack of other storage such as glycogen.
These comments about Twitter are really getting tiring. See any Foone thread and you'll almost always realize it's getting derailed by a huge comment thread complaining about Twitter.
It's in the computability theory sense, since compilers and language specifications are symbolic math-heavy, and in math you model all these things as recursive functions, the terminology is applied uniformly.
How does LLVM decide this loop is unbounded? Is any `while(true)` loop considered UB and therefore replaced with `return true` or is there more advanced introspection of the ast (some limited set of the halting problem)?
It checks how the loop can be exited, assumes that the loop must exit and thus take the code path that exits it, and then applies optimizations to remove everything it doesn't need to find the result.
Which isn't quite right: the C++ spec allows the compiler to assume that a loop without side-effects will terminate. And the only way the loop terminates will be by returning true.
PhotoDNA: "is an image-identification technology used for detecting child pornography and other illegal content which is reported to the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children (NCMEC) [...] It is used on Microsoft's own services including Bing and OneDrive, as well as by Google's Gmail, Twitter, Facebook, Adobe Systems, Reddit, Discord and the NCMEC, to whom Microsoft donated the technology." [1]
I'm (almost) certain any Google service will tag CSAM for reports and will also hash content it deems illegal for the NCMEC too [2], so I wouldn't be surprised if Google Photos already did something like this.
