Use cases: health indicators, avoiding conception, achieving conception, and accurate pregnancy dating.
A well developed period tracking system with a long history is the Creighton Method. Briefly, individuals are trained person-to-person to collect consistent, reliable repeatable data. This can be compared between users, and has many uses. However, the data collection is inconvenient or in some cases impossible, and they will only train married women.
> It's ironic that a cartoon that depicts musical improvisation is such a symbol of passively consumed culture.
I don't know that I would describe it as ironic. Throughout the ages, the entertainment that people enjoyed in their various cultures depicted all sorts of active things (including playing music, painting, killing the bad guy, etc.) while the audience sat back and enjoyed it passively (mostly; they laughed, got frightened, talked to each other, etc.).
I agree with Auromis. The reported research is interesting, and yet is not yet ready for application to human health. It's tempting to leap to conclusions. The top poster takes this too far.
I hope that NIH funds a lot more Alzheimer's research looking for microbial causes, and also, that the technology for understanding gut microbiome continues to develop.
It is news in Spain because, in Spain, there is a 1000+ euro fine for transmitting intimate photos of a person (of any age) without their consent. This applies to anyone who transmits the photo, including third parties. The controversy and legal question is whether or not these photos constitute intimate photos.
This probably happens elsewhere, but there is no legal mechanism to prevent it.
There exist gyms and personal training education for pregnant and postpartum women. I considered sharing one here, but I realized that the comportment of many on HN would be disruptive to them.
Presumably bonded to something other than carbon. In particular I'm guessing it gets pushed to ionic bonds, in the form of fluoride, which is much less scary than perfluoro-crap or (god forbid) elemental fluorine.
I'm only peripherally involved in the law field, and I am aware that ChatGPT and similar do not consistently provide correct legal citations. It also gets things wrong some of the time; the only way to tell is to be an expert or to look up the facts yourself. Don't use ChatGPT for legal writing, nor for anything else that requires accuracy.
When it's correct, it can be a good search aid. But for a lot of things, it is just incorrect with high levels of confidence.
You can also ask it Bluebook questions and it will often get the right answer. At other times, it will get the right answer but cite to the wrong rule (not that it matters that much).
Another issue is that it can cite to the correct case, but misunderstand what it is citing to. You can be really specific and ask something like "what is the x-factor test from Doe v. Doe" and it will get three factors correct and invent the other two.
The thing with law, though, is that there are often already many quick reference materials that have already been extensively published that will get you the answer you are looking for more quickly than you can get it through either search or a chat interface. Many state bar associations make available the equivalent of a "practice area in a box" full of checklists, templates, and other material geared towards making it possible for you to start working in that area almost immediately.
I have had it be useful in course correcting my research in an unfamiliar area of law. I was wasting a lot of time reading secondary sources and cases that were not relevant to my problem because I knew nothing about that area of law and my search queries were just leading me in unproductive directions. ChatGPT pointed me towards a more relevant case that opened up the rest of my research for me using conventional tools like Westlaw. It saved me a lot of time. But I did not use it at all for the final work product and never used it blind without looking at a source.
That's right, generative model outputs are worthless unless checked by a human. You are using it right. For the moment I don't think there is any single domain where AI can work on its own, autonomy was reached in 0% of fields. That makes me think the removal of the human in the loop will take a long time. We are still safe, AI will be our sidekick.
It's crazy how AI seems to progress at incredible speed and yet we don't get closer to full autonomy anywhere. It's as if we discover new problems at the same speed we are solving them. Just 5 years ago nobody would think hallucinations will become a central issue in AI, we might discover other unknown unknowns that hide in our future.
I've been thinking that it's funny how these AI tools are framed as assistants, but it seems they are actually the opposite. They are great at big picture stuff but sloppy when it comes to details. So the more logical division of labor is to make the human the assistant.
The sounds emitted by the plants are between 20 and 80 kHz, which is within the auditory range of some mammal, such as mice. Although the normal range of hearing in humans is said to be 100 Hz to 20 kHz, when I was a grad student in my early 20s I could detect sounds up to 28 kHz in the sound booth.
I wonder whether there are people who can hear these sounds, even faintly.
A well developed period tracking system with a long history is the Creighton Method. Briefly, individuals are trained person-to-person to collect consistent, reliable repeatable data. This can be compared between users, and has many uses. However, the data collection is inconvenient or in some cases impossible, and they will only train married women.