otter

1

I came into this thread to speak about wait times too, but you said it much better than I could have. Thank you :)

16

There is some nuance yes. But it's also easy to see that it's cheaper to deal with a problem early than it is to deal with the consequences after the fact, especially if that second step is done poorly.

It's not one or the other, since giving money won't stop all crime or violence. Rather its about finding the right balance between the different places that the money can go. Right now, in many places around the world, we might be putting too much money into policing, and that money could be better spent on other programs.

1

Otter @lemmy.ca 1mo ago

It's still E2E, but the sender is Zulip and the potentially hostile service provider is google/apple. E2E isn't limited to person to person chats

It would be nice if Zulip chats were E2E, but I imagine that would be a large undertaking

Otter @lemmy.ca 1mo ago

I think its just that there are a lot of repeating numbers. The next one isn't for another 4 years, according to that other link that someone posted

Assuming that this timestamp is in seconds:
GMT: Friday, November 9, 2029 at 3:21:28 a.m.
Your time zone: Thursday, November 8, 2029 at 7:21:28 p.m. GMT-08:00
Relative: In 4 years

1

Otter @lemmy.ca 1mo ago

Sure, but exploring astrocytes isn't random. Astrocytes are the support/repair/maintenance cells of the CNS.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s12276-023-01148-0

If the study is reproducible, it could be a good step forward for our understanding of Alzheimer's, even if this specific technique doesn't translate to human astrocytes.

It's possible that the reason we don't have a treatment for Alzheimer's is because a different mouse study in 2006 caused researchers to focus on the wrong physiological process.

The first author of that influential study, published in Nature in 2006, was an ascending neuroscientist: Sylvain Lesné of the University of Minnesota (UMN), Twin Cities. His work underpins a key element of the dominant yet controversial amyloid hypothesis of Alzheimer’s, which holds that Aβ clumps, known as plaques, in brain tissue are a primary cause of the devastating illness, which afflicts tens of millions globally. In what looked like a smoking gun for the theory and a lead to possible therapies, Lesné and his colleagues discovered an Aβ subtype and seemed to prove it caused dementia in rats. If Schrag’s doubts are correct, Lesné’s findings were an elaborate mirage.

A 6-month investigation by Science provided strong support for Schrag’s suspicions and raised questions about Lesné’s research. A leading independent image analyst and several top Alzheimer’s researchers—including George Perry of the University of Texas, San Antonio, and John Forsayeth of the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF)—reviewed most of Schrag’s findings at Science’s request. They concurred with his overall conclusions, which cast doubt on hundreds of images, including more than 70 in Lesné’s papers. Some look like “shockingly blatant” examples of image tampering, says Donna Wilcock, an Alzheimer’s expert at the University of Kentucky.
The authors “appeared to have composed figures by piecing together parts of photos from different experiments,” says Elisabeth Bik, a molecular biologist and well-known forensic image consultant. “The obtained experimental results might not have been the desired results, and that data might have been changed to … better fit a hypothesis.”

Otter @lemmy.ca 1mo ago

What if you distributed the tool under the normal channels, and then used gumroad (or anything similar) to sell an optional key that adds a little visual indicator or removes a nag message. I've seen a few other open source projects do that. Grayjay for example

1

Otter @lemmy.ca 1mo ago

For anyone that doesn't agree with the decision in this article

3

Otter @lemmy.ca 1mo ago

Just set up a separate set of awards for AI artists and creators. Meat-bags and non-meat-bags can tune in if they care.

Win win for everyone.

1

Otter @lemmy.ca 1mo ago

Amnesty International did put something out in both of these cases.

For the first one, the additional link goes into why that testimony was initially included in their report before the correction.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nayirah_testimony

https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v13/n03/alexander-cockburn/right-stuff

Nayirah's story was initially corroborated by Amnesty International, which published a report about the supposed killings[3] and testimony from Kuwaiti evacuees. Following the liberation of Kuwait, international media crews were given access to the country. A report by ABC News found that "patients, including premature babies, did die, when many of Kuwait's nurses and doctors ... fled" but Iraqi troops "almost certainly had not stolen hospital incubators and left hundreds of Kuwaiti babies to die."[4] Later, Amnesty International USA reacted by issuing a correction, with executive director John Healey subsequently accusing the George H. W. Bush administration of "opportunistic manipulation of the international human rights movement."

The second one is more complex, but they're mentioned there too

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_and_gender-based_violence_in_the_October_7_attacks

Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International stated that these alleged confessions were likely extracted under torture, violate international law and basic human rights, and should be considered inadmissible as credible evidence.[61] They also called on the Israeli government to cease publishing such taped "confessions".[61] Physicians for Human Rights Israel denounced these alleged taped confessions, citing "severe concern that the interrogations included the use of torture."[64] The UN and reports by human rights organizations such as B'Tselem and media outlets have confirmed Israeli systematic use of torture during the Gaza war, including rape, gang-rape, sexualized torture and mutilation of detained Palestinian men, women and children by Israeli guards, including during interrogations.

My point is that, biases definitely exist and there is often selective reporting with news organizations.

I just find it weird to lump amnesty international in with all that when they seem to be one of the few that are actually calling out atrocities regardless of "sides"

Otter @lemmy.ca 1mo ago

I cross posted this to !selfhosted@lemmy.world, I hope that was ok! I figured it would be good to spread the knowledge

3

Otter @lemmy.ca 1mo ago

I don't think amnesty.org's stance on this matter would have changed in the past few years. They have been consistent in their messaging for a while now.

Interestingly, this page on criticisms highlights how they don't shy away from calling out abuses regardless of which "side" the offending party is on

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Amnesty_International

3

Otter @lemmy.ca 1mo ago

There is something to see, we just won't have a treatment as fast as we would if this was in human trials.

With all the controversies around Alzheimer's research, if this study is reproducible, it could kick start treatment in a productive direction. I'm looking at this bit in particular

Researchers noted that most existing therapies target beta-amyloid plaques, while their study focuses on astrocytes, offering a complementary strategy that could improve treatment outcomes.