Corran1138

joined 1 year ago
[–] Corran1138@lemmy.world 17 points 9 months ago (2 children)

Headline should read, DeepMind calculated 2.2 million hypothetically stable crystal structures with the possibility to advance everything from materials science to biology (emphasis mine)

There's a large difference between a hypothetical crystal structure and being able to produce that crystal structure in the real world. And an even larger difference between the hypothetical and the ability to produce the crystal structure in an efficient and cost-effective enough manner to be usable. There are already multiple materials that are known that would make better batteries than lithium-ion batteries, but either the manufacturing method is too hard or expensive, or the materials are extremely rare. So it's nice DeepMind was able to do this, but it's years from being usable still.

[–] Corran1138@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago

It’s like they were trying to jump the Gorge Dukes of Hazzard style. Crazy to watch.

[–] Corran1138@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago

I would add on that apparently the play tree for Dorsey was apparently so simple that defenses could figure it out in only a few plays. Like if guys lined up in a certain way, then the D knew it would 1-2 plays max. That allows defenses to guess the play and jump routes, which accounts for a significant chunk of Allen's interceptions for the year. If that's true, then it's no wonder Allen has the number of interceptions he does and then blame really doesn't fall on the offense's shoulders, but on the OC for being so transparent.

[–] Corran1138@lemmy.world 6 points 10 months ago (5 children)

It's a problem in that it ignores the fact that McCown (who happened to then fight for the Confederacy after) collected this bird and gave it to another white man, who 'named' it. The bird was already well known to Native American tribes in Texas and Arizona. So to say that McCown 'discovered' it is just blatantly wrong. The name that the AOS will go with is the 'thick-billed longspur' as it's anatomically accurate and doesn't make it seem like McCown discovered this bird.

[–] Corran1138@lemmy.world 5 points 10 months ago

Don't give them any ideas.

[–] Corran1138@lemmy.world 3 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Now I'm sitting here trying not to laugh, thinking about the old adage: how do you know if the Pope is venomous or poisonous?

If you bite the Pope and you die, he's poisonous. If the Pope bites you and you die, he's venomous.

[–] Corran1138@lemmy.world 6 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (3 children)

I feel like he would spray holy water though.

[–] Corran1138@lemmy.world 3 points 10 months ago

That’s the next game in the Dark Souls line: Bright Souls: YHWH’s revenge.

[–] Corran1138@lemmy.world 7 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Now I'm imagining laser derby matches.

[–] Corran1138@lemmy.world 3 points 11 months ago

There’s multiple levels so the answer is “sort of.” Very generally, the Minister of Defense (or equivalent) has a national defense council that will have heads of armed forces and maybe a few senior civilian members. The council creates the overall battle plan with specific generals or admirals creating plans for specific battles or campaigns that conform to the overarching goals set by the defense council. The Prime Minister has a cabinet. The cabinet will receive info from the defense council. Intelligence agencies and departments involved with any economic warfare. The PM and cabinet can give direction to individual councils and departments to coordinate the overarching strategy of the entire country. The defense council will then adjust plans based on Cabinet’s directives. The PM is probably given detailed briefings of battlefield progress and aims for the military for the short-, medium-, and long-term for the conflict and can veto specific plans. But the PM won’t help to plan attacks or modify those plans usually. That’s the purview of generals and admirals.

[–] Corran1138@lemmy.world 4 points 11 months ago

So, in reading through this, I see several problems, but the authors note these mostly. The primary being that they used two different methods of detecting DNA in the vaccine samples and got two wildly different values. The qPCR returned normal numbers and their fluorometry had wildly higher numbers. It's been years since I've done a fluorometry study, but I feel like my qPCR numbers were usually more reliable. If that's still the case, saying that widely distributed vaccines have high amounts of DNA in them is just wrong, because the qPCR values returned numbers well under the FDA acceptable amount of DNA in the COVID vaccine.

And saying that they detected DNA fragments at all is something of an 'uh duh, yeah' statement for the title. You'll always find SOME DNA fragments. As long as they are under some identified acceptable boundary (hopefully itself established in other studies) then it shouldn't affect the vaccine's efficacy or increase SAEs. Add to that VAERS is there to report EVERY adverse event that happens during vaccine trials and afterward, finding a correlation between DNA found in vaccines and increased reports in VAERS is like finding a correlation between increases in butter sales in Maine correlates with increased murder rates in Chicago. It's somewhat interesting right now, but definitely doesn't rise to the level "holy shit, we need to re-science this ASAP!"

[–] Corran1138@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago

BE Man, Amazon must be really pissed off about this...

 

I've seen a lot of people wondering how Prigozhin could make such a terrible mistake. I think that ISW has got the right of it in their analysis from today.

The second paragraph describes Prigozhin's thought process about why he may have thought he was safe. He was still personally loyal to Putin but his drive on Moscow was to remove Shoigu and Co. But it so embarrassed Putin that Prigozhin had to die. So Prigozhin thought he was safe enough due to not trying to oust Putin, which is why he's been traveling around as if he's untouchable.

Putin’s speech largely confirms ISW’s prior assessment that Prigozhin did not intend to oust Putin during his June 24 rebellion and instead saw himself as loyal to Putin while seeking to force Putin to fire the Russian military leadership as he had been demanding.[8] A Russian insider source, citing an unnamed individual who knew Prigozhin, claimed that Prigozhin was confident that Putin would forgive him.[9] Prigozhin likely underestimated how seriously his rebellion had personally humiliated Putin. Prigozhin had also apparently overestimated the value of his own loyalty to Putin. Putin places significant value on loyalty and has frequently rewarded loyal Russian officials and military commanders even when they have failed. Prigozhin’s rebellion was an act of significant insubordination despite his claim that he rebelled out of loyalty to Russia.[10] Putin’s statement was therefore a warning to those currently loyal to Putin that some mistakes are too serious for loyalty to overcome.

view more: next ›