I really like the lite version - but then I used to work on an early version of the BBC website where pages over 70kb, including images, would make the ops team growl.

I wonder if the "investigators" were subconsciously not that interested in actually solving the mystery, but were just enjoying the process. Can't remember what it was I was reading recently, but there was a character who deliberately did things the hard way, or in a convoluted way, because it satisfied something inside of him.

Edit: It was this article about an orchid collector: https://www.susanorlean.com/articles/orchid_fever.html

Anyone who falls in love with Haskell can probably relate.

Being a pasty Brit, going to Australia was a real eye opener in how much more on the ball they were about skin cancer, not just in medical terms but culturally. We're getting better here (I was there more than a decade ago) but it's still seen as quite amusing when people get sunburnt here.

Awareness started in the 1980s in Australia with Sid the Seagull:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGgn5nwYtj0

https://www.abc.net.au/btn/classroom/sun-safety-campaign/103...

What do you mean by this being a "horrible" use of AI? (Although as another commenter has mentioned, this should more properly be called ML).

It's quite easy to correctly classify 100% of benign cases as benign.

If it's so easy, then why do people die from having lesions misdiagnosed as benign?

Even if the success rate of the human eye was in the 99.5%+ range, why not have an extra sanity check from an AI model?

> If it's so easy, then why do people die from having lesions misdiagnosed as benign?

You're confusing False Negatives with True Negatives. For Non-Benign (Positive) vs. Benign (Negative) classification:

* True Positive Rate (TPR): non-benign classified as non-benign.

* False Positive Rate (FPR): benign misclassified as non-benign.

* True Negative Rate (TNR): benign classified as benign.

* False Negative Rate (FNR): non-benign misclassified as benign.

> It's quite easy to correctly classify 100% of benign cases as benign.

You can engineer a 100% TNR if you just classify everything as the "benign" negative class. The FNR is going to be 100% too, but that doesn't matter -- you correctly classified 100% of benign cases as benign.

> why do people die from having lesions misdiagnosed as benign?

Because the FNR is not 0%. FNR is important. You probably want a decent TPR in there as well. And FPR can be very important too, depending on how life-changing/painful/invasive the treatment for a positive case is!

Because this non-AI function 'correctly diagnoses 100% benign cases as benign':

    def is_benign(mole: Image) -> bool:
        return True

...but also misdiagnoses 100% malignant cases.

For my sins I was once in a Microsoft SQL training session. The guy leading it was great, but at the end of every thought he'd make a noise in his throat, like "uhn" or similar. I couldn't stop noticing it acting like a carriage return at the end of each thought, and hyper-fixated on it to the extent that I learnt precisely nothing.

I run a WordPress agency and while I think the block editor was foisted on wordpress.org far too quickly, it's been a godsend in terms of allowing our clients much more control over their content. The prospect of going back to the TinyMCE WYSIWYG editor and templates makes me shudder.

I don't get the criticism either. Every time I try to post on a platform I miss the ability of just dragging a paragraph around to reorder it.

I have no idea about the quality of the sites this produces, but I think your comment about non-technical folks existing is on the money. There are many people who really don't understand how to properly structure even a simple website, and being walked through a conversation with a series of pertinent questions will be a much more satisfying process.

I am one of them. Without help from a capable and kind developer friend back in 2004 I never ever would have been able to create mine.

We immediately cancel our subscription as soon as we subscribe for services like Netflix, Disney+ etc, where you keep the service for the month. It's thankfully really easy to susbcribe and unsubscribe these days, so doing it this way means we never unknowingly renew. Must have saved us hundreds of pounds by now.

Same here. I never subscribed to Netflix or Disney+ for the intended purpose of continually paying for it in perpetuity - it was always to watch the one show I want (in <1mo) and then immediately kill it.

You've phrased your comment as if it's a counterpoint to OP, but it's not - both can be true (and from personal experience OP is absolutely right).

I kinda get where you're coming from, but the comment is about the fact it hasn't been done, and there's no reason why it should be a separate set.

Elderly men are more vulnerable to suicide die to lack of social connections. So it makes sense for a project that fosters social connections to prioritize men.

It's about equity, not equality.