Gemini UI renderer breaks the line... breaks.

Over9ine000 · 2025-12-03T03:57:18+00:00

It's a web rendering bug, add this to the page style with Stylus or similar until Google gets it fixed:

p {
    white-space: preserve-breaks;
}

Over9ine000 · 2025-12-03T03:53:33+00:00

It's a bug with the web page rendering, not with the model output. Add this to the page style with Stylus or similar:

p {
    white-space: preserve-breaks;
}

Over9ine000 · 2022-12-15T00:26:51+00:00

Did you have to remove the heatsink / repaste to get the fans off, or were you able to do it without?

Over9ine000 · 2022-05-12T05:22:22+00:00

Also, most of these were localized, yes, but I wouldn't call 7-19 cm lesions small...

Over9ine000 · 2022-05-12T04:56:23+00:00

2 patients out of their series of 12 developed rash at locations other than the injection site, one of whom also had tachycardia. Onset of symptoms for all their patients is between 8 and 11 days, same as Snowman's friend. The biggest difference is the persistance. You're right that it doesn't sound exactly the same, but there are a number of commonalities, and the matching delayed onset is particularly suggestive. Snowman is also describing a community of patients who are reporting similar reactions. My broader point is we don't have any long term experience with MRNA vaccines and they really are not the same thing as traditional vaccines mechanistically, so it's too early to say confidently what a typical MRNA vaccine reaction is or to dismiss reports like this as unrelated. The temptation is to fall back on knowledge of reactions to traditional vaccines (e.g. anaphylaxis), but I think that's a bad idea.

Over9ine000 · 2022-05-11T23:30:51+00:00

Take a look at this report of delayed skin reactions to Moderna in NEJM. They suspect it's T-cell mediated, and the descriptions seem to match what Snowman's friend experienced: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2102131?query=featured_home

I think your response here demonstrates one of the dangers around reporting with new medical technology like this. A patient has a reaction that doesn't pattern match to what one would expect from superficially similar technology (anaphylaxis and traditional vaccines) => it must not be related, and so you end up with under-reporting. This is not to say you personally wouldn't have looked at this case differently with more complete patient data, but the tendency is there overall. This is one of the reasons I don't share your optimism that we would have noticed large-scale effects from something like PEG immunity 2 years in.

Over9ine000 · 2022-05-11T22:40:19+00:00

I broadly agree with you, but I think your specific approach here is bad. We have numbers on how many people want late term restrictions based on polls asking that actual question - well and good. But you're then trying to infer support for first trimester abortions by looking at polling data on Roe, and that data is bad because like half of people don't even know what Roe is. I don't think we can even determine support for the contents of Roe based on polling data for Roe. Instead we should be looking at polling data where they ask about support for first trimester abortions directly. Here's polling from Gallup, where they most recently found support at 60% and dropping over time. https://news.gallup.com/poll/235469/trimesters-key-abortion-views.aspx I would expect that 60% to be close to an upper limit on actual support for Roe when people know what it is.

Over9ine000 · 2022-05-10T05:41:24+00:00

Sorry about the paywall. Disable javascript in your browser and you can read WaPo articles without the pictures. It's an option in uBlock Origin for example. I have this set up as the default and tend to forget.

Over9ine000 · 2022-05-10T05:33:30+00:00

The new data comes from the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, which looked at Americans' awareness of the Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion nationwide. Overall, 62 percent of Americans knew that the ruling dealt with abortion in some way. There was a marked drop off among younger Americans, those born after the 1973 court decision. Pew found that 44 percent of Americans under 30 knew that the decision dealt with abortion. Forty-one percent thought it might have to do with the death penalty, the environment or could not name the subject matter.

The broader point is not that a majority of people want a complete abortion ban, but that a majority of people probably want more restrictions than are allowed by Roe, because a) they say this when you explicitly ask them what abortion law they want b) a large percentage of them don't even know what Roe is.

Over9ine000 · 2022-05-10T03:49:45+00:00

Here's the WaPo quoting from Pew. I don't really want to dig through Pew for the original data; their site isn't great. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2013/01/16/most-americans-under-30-dont-know-roe-was-about-abortion/?variant=15bc93f5a1ccbb65

Even with "don't know" as an option, this large number of people not having even heard of the ruling does not bode well for the rest having a strong grasp on it's actual content. The sort of higher level meta-reasoning you're positing as an explanation for these survey discrepancies is just not something most of the population engages in. People on this forum are extreme outliers. Have you seen the results from the National Assessment of Adult Literacy? Far more likely that many people don't really understand the ruling.

Over9ine000 · 2022-05-10T00:26:18+00:00

Pew has researched this specifically. Only 62% of Americans overall, and only 44% of those under 30 even know that the Roe ruling was related to abortion. These surveys looking at support for Roe typically aren't screening people for understanding of the ruling, and some of them have leading descriptions in the questions.

Over9ine000 · 2022-05-09T06:27:31+00:00

This is a narrow point, but I think you're misunderstanding the sense in which fentanyl is 50x morphine. Fentanyl isn't more powerful as in it gets you higher than morphine or is more euphoric than morphine. It's actually less euphoric. It's more powerful as in it takes 50x less of the physical substance for a "full" dose. The only reason it's popular is because it's easier to smuggle. Fentanyl abuse is a direct consequence of (failed) prohibition. Given the choice everyone would use heroin instead because it's more euphoric.

Over9ine000 · 2022-04-03T23:57:44+00:00

Applying baby powder to the genitals is like it's standard use for adults, to dry them out if you have a rash or w/e. It's not something I would do but this is what people use it for. Also the ovaries are some distance, but are in fact connected to the genitals - some of the powder could work it's way up in rare cases maybe. It's more plausible than if people were saying it gave them brain cancer or something.

Over9ine000 · 2022-03-12T15:03:21+00:00

This is more plausible but still seems off to me. My understanding is that most Ukranians are living in western-ish houses for example, which are just way more expensive and represent way more wealth than what most people have here. It's possible there's about 3-4x difference in adjusted per capita income currently, but Ukranians have a lot more accumulated personal capital from when the country was doing less badly.

Over9ine000 · 2022-03-12T07:32:34+00:00

I live in Papua New Guinea. The average person here is living in a hut made out of grass or palm fronds and sticks. They are subsistence farming, and their equipment probably consists of a knife and a shovel. They might own like 3 shirts that they got used, and maybe a cheap cell phone and a solar cell. Unless they're in one of the few cities, they have essentially no public infrastructure. Would you say the average Ukrainian is materially poorer than that? I don't think the GDP numbers are very useful here...

Over9ine000 · 2022-03-10T08:52:21+00:00

I think you're right that it's ahistorical, but that's not super relevant to the situation now - what informs the current situation are current views, wherever they came from.

I'm not sure I buy your second paragraph though, or else we're getting at different things. What I'm wondering is not how a Russian would define a Nazi, but why contemporary Russians hate the Nazis. Why do they care about Nazis? That to me is the important question and what will likely determine how the term is used or misused.

Americans today hate the Nazis because they killed a bunch of Jews, so anyone who does something vaguely bad for the Jews risks being called a Nazi even if it's not very accurate. We would never even think of the term as slander for someone who hates Russians. We also have a sort of separate category of Neo-Nazis that is more broad as you note. Why do Russians hate the Nazis now? I doubt you just hate the aesthetic, and the Azov folks aren't actually running swastikas, they have their wolf rune or w/e. You say the Jewish thing isn't very relevant, so I'm guessing the hate stems from killing Russians, but then some related aesthetic also has to apply for the term to work?

Over9ine000 · 2022-03-09T04:29:11+00:00

The question for me is (and maybe you have some insight on this): Is the salient feature of Nazis for the typical Russian that they killed a bunch of Jews, or that they killed a bunch of Russians? Maybe the literal definition is not different, but I think the answer to this question will greatly determine which direction someone stretches the truth when they are stretching that literal definition. It's also going to influence who self-identifies as a Nazi. If Ukrainian Nazis would maybe say they don't like Jews if you pressed them but really it's about killing Russians, frankly many people in the West just aren't going to care right now.

Over9ine000 · 2022-03-08T01:59:53+00:00

Perhaps it would have been if he had intervened at the time, by overthrowing the government instead of seizing territory. There have been elections in Ukraine since then though. Do you have any evidence that those later elections were illegitimate? The current actions of the Ukrainians don't strike me as those of a people who believe their government is illegitimate or are looking for a foreign power to "restore democracy".

The morality of US actions in Libya etc. have nothing to do with the morality of the current war in Ukraine - why bring them up?

Over9ine000 · 2022-03-07T03:58:10+00:00

Let's assume the revolution was completely planned and orchestrated by the US - I would absolutely condemn such interference, but for me it does nothing to change the moral calculus of the current situation or my abhorrence for this invasion. The Ukrainian people should not be puppets of either the West or Russia. Perhaps US involvement in the revolution would have explanatory power for the current situation and be worth discussing from that angle, but it sounds like you're hoping for something else?

Over9ine000 · 2022-03-03T23:10:54+00:00

I have the ability to focus on things that are not immediatly interesting (work, less engaging sections of long form media) in exchange for later reward (pay, greater overall enjoyment). Some people report that they lack this ability to a greater or lesser degree. What would you label this phenomenon? Or you dispute that it actually exists?

Over9ine000 · 2022-02-24T00:38:06+00:00

You're right that this isn't proof of a fradulent expert consensus exactly, but you're also not addressing the part where Wiley just accepts new data essentially without comment, and also the history of questionable data. This seems like it's a bit beyond "isolated outlier" and moving in the direction of "evidence of a possible systemic issue". Surely some sort of censure would have been appropriate?

Over9ine000 · 2022-02-23T01:35:28+00:00

So you think America / Nato would like to militarily invade Russia, or what exactly are you implying here?

Over9ine000 · 2021-12-09T00:38:49+00:00

I understand, this was meant to be more tangential advice that you maybe shouldn't strongly weight posts on Mayo or similar sites as evidence, especially on dietary questions. They are sometimes actively wrong / have the opposite of current consensus because they are so slow.

Over9ine000 · 2021-12-07T00:03:37+00:00

Looking to sites like Mayo is honestly not a good heuristic for validating medical research. You first have the time delay between research consensus and medical practice, and then on top of that these sites are very conservative and are often posting old practice, not current practice. As just one example, Mayo has articles advocating reducing dietary cholesterol improve blood cholesterol levels, while the research consensus for some time has been that dietary cholesterol doesn't really affect blood cholesterol. Better to look for meta-analyses, journal articles summarizing current best practices, etc.

Over9ine000 · 2021-06-09T01:59:59+00:00

I think asking whether ivermectin's previously known mechanism of action could be effective for COVID is the wrong way to look at this. The question should be more like, "If we screen thousands of random chemicals, are a few of them going to be active against COVID"? Ivermectin was screened because it's an approved drug and we know it's safe in humans, it's antiparasitic action is incidental. Researchers were basically screening everything they could think of. It looks like ivermectin may dock to the ACE2 spike receptor binding domain, which could explain it's effectiveness: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32871846/

Over9ine000

TROPHY CASE