No, they published their rules ahead of time. When you do that you can’t just go and make up new rules on the spot. That’s a central tenet of “the rule of law” that the rules are written down so we can interpret them.
My first Mac was the same white plastic one, I think it was called the iBook back then? Cost me the majority of my summer job earnings going into freshman year, but it was a great machine for me back then! I still have it in a box somewhere in the basement, might be fun pull it out and resurrect it :)
The white plastic Mac laptop, depending on the generation, was either called the iBook, or later the Macbook when they moved to Intel. Blame it on IBM who didn't want Apple to use PowerBook for a Mac with an Intel chip, which forced the company to rename the whole line.
Absolutely. Literally in the fourth paragraph it says:
“The number of NIH grants in which HHS has demanded changes is unclear, although the practice does not appear widespread. And Science has not learned of any specific proposal that was not funded as a result. Still… “
I read it all. But like many of these science.org articles they are pretty short, and not of the best quality in my opinion. The article itself admits the practice isn’t widespread. It sounds to me like there are a few disgruntled folks on the research side because of some unexpected/ unwanted back and forth in the “commenting” phase of the research? I’m not going to act like I know the mechanics of how research projects like that progress, but it doesn’t sound like it was more than a road bump and then the projects continued after said commenting. No projects were defunded or cancelled as per the article. Were the government commenters out of line or uninformed? Sure that wouldn’t shock me. Does that equate to “HHS is overriding peer review” on some grand systematic level? Seems like a big jump to me, and I don’t feel like the article demonstrates that, but I’m open to other ideas if you see it differently
To start, the title doesn’t match the article title, and it’s purposely manipulated to invoke a certain feeling, completely against HN guidelines.
Moreover, a quote from the fourth paragraph:
“ The number of NIH grants in which HHS has demanded changes is unclear, although the practice does not appear widespread. And Science has not learned of any specific proposal that was not funded as a result. Still… ”
Well here we are. You can just stop reading at that point since you know you’re in the middle of a sloppy, politically motivated hit piece. I’m not a Trumper, never voted for him, but it’s clearly invoking anti-Trump sentiment.
Meanwhile HHS isn’t Trump, It’s RFK Jr, and I’ve followed him closely for a long time. Wasn’t super happy about him joining the administration, but I truly believe he did it as an opportunity to make an impact according to his own values. Did you know HHS has the biggest budget in the government? Even over defense?
We’re already seeing the results. Numerous products on the grocery isles already changing their labels and ingredients. I literally just bought a bottle of Gatorade the other day with a flashy label touting “75% less sugar and by artificial dyes”.
The whole 32 ounce bottle only has like 10 grams sugar, and it was still delicious! That’s what Gatorade should have always been, it doesn’t have to be poison to be good or sellable.
We are seeing similar things across the board in the grocery isles, and it will only continue while RFK is at the helm. We should be applauding this, and we should be able to separate it from political dogma.
The actual title of the article is “Exclusive: HHS is now weighing in on science in NIH grants”. As if they’ve never done that before? That’s literally one of HHS’s jobs.
The subtitle of the article is “Staffers say comments coming after NIH’s own approvals are overriding peer review”.
Are you arguing “HHS is overriding peer review to require changes to research scope, design” means the same thing as that subtitle? Brushing aside the fact that we’re talking about comments coming after projects were approved?
The submitted title is editorialized to illicit a bigger response that the real tile would have, pretty cut and dry. And the content of the submitted article itself is very shallow.
You’re right, I personally got emotional about it. But that doesn’t prove “it is because it is an accurate portrayal of a bad thing”.
You didn’t care to comment on any of my other points besides the title, I’m happy to get feedback on those specific points as well :)
Yes, it is factual. They are overriding peer review to require changes to research scope and design. Did you read the actual article. Allow me to quote:
"For example, according to documentation seen by Science:
* In a project studying factors contributing to depression using many years of observational data from large cohorts, the HHS review recommended adding genetic influences. The project was in its fourth year, when such changes were likely not feasible.
*vHHS asked that an ongoing grant proposing to study obesity in a minority group more clearly explain why certain “stressors” might influence weight. The grant was approved after the investigator added more stressors and other potential factors and described other health outcomes in addition to obesity.
*vAn ongoing study of a health matter in a certain occupation focused on a minority population. The commenter asked whether a specific health problem was more common with this group or its members responded differently to an intervention. The investigator added explanations in response.
In another case described to Science by an NIH program officer, HHS requested the investigator add a new analysis to a study examining factors contributing to obesity in a minority population.
Sometimes, the demands make no sense, NIH staffers say. For example, HHS wanted a scientist training grant in its final year to add a clinical trial—work these awards by definition do not support. “It’s an absolutely bonkers comment,” a program officer says."
Oh man, I left Gmail 6-7 years ago for different reasons (a total overhaul & hardening of my personal privacy/ security posture), but kudos to you! Get away and don’t look back, you won’t regret it! I’d recommend de-googling your life of all their services, you really don’t need them. There are good, more privacy respecting options for just about everything except maps. Google Maps is the one service I still use constantly.
Meta and Google ads are kind of a must. It's the only service I cannot replace.
But for everyday humans, Google and Meta are the dark clouds in the sky you can just ignore, you do not need to stand in the rain. No one's making you.
Yeah I don’t use it for navigation, but for exploring your local area, finding restaurants, retail or other businesses it’s hard to ignore unfortunately
The author literally mentioned they are in the process of migrating to Fastmail, but it sounds like you’re bringing it up as a new recommendation? Then you restated the reason they are moving away (overbearing AI features in your face) as if it wasn’t the crux of their argument? Then you touted how good Fastmail migration features are after the author stated they actually like the fact they are starting with a clean slate, and are undecided if they even want to migrate? Something smells fishy here my friend
Didn't you consider that the comment you're replying to was for the benefit of other readers not necessarily the OP? I found it useful and yes I did read both.
This shouldn’t be surprising. Let’s start off with the obvious. What does “real-world fact-check claims” mean? So we’re using the same list of “fact check claims” on each model. The problem is (unless I’m missing it) the authors aren’t exposing the list of 1K questions they used in the experiment. That’s a huge problem. Are the authors assuming the 1K claims they used are “provably true”? If so, that’s a huge bias, and opens up a philosophical debate about what it a fact? Or what’s makes something true/ false?
As Marc Andreessen puts it: a particular domain is either explicitly “provable” or not “provable”. Provable domains include math, physics, chemistry, biology, engineering, even code. That not be the whole list, but everything else is essentially “unprovable”. At least as far as a language model is concerned. They are questions that require a human value judgement. Politics are an obvious example. So back to the “1K fact check claims“. How many of these are political, or current events questions? How many are STEM questions that can be laid out in a formal proof?
Models can be trained to answer either way on claims that require a value judgement, but that’s obviously not beneficial to anyone except who controls the model. If the expectation is that all these frontier models should answer the same way on value judgement questions, then that’s never going to happen. What the models ARE good at though is breaking down the nuances of a topic and arguing both sides. This is how these tools should be used, as a way to analyze the claim and let us humans in the end make our own value judgement. If you’re trusting the model to make the value judgement for you and just accept it as a fact, then you are entering a a very dangerous territory.
Seems cool, and the motion controls and surprisingly precise & difficulty honestly. You really need a steady hand. I personally don’t mind something with a steep learning curve, but maybe offering an “easy” mode where the controls are dialed down a little in intensity would make sense? I like the UI choice where the play field gets smaller as time elapses, giving a sense of urgency. I also like the “double hits” and “wall hits” concept. Some refinement in the scoring system to account for those would make sense. Meaning, right now it seems to be what “level” you achieved with the minor details underneath. Maybe work out a scoring system that accounts for highest level, double hits, wall hits, etc… and calculates and actual “high score” based off that?
I’ve been thinking about exactly this for a while. Non-technical people just don’t understand all the moving pieces, let alone what action they should take. I agree with you, we need more conversation and guidance detailing what easy steps people can take to harden their security posture, and why that matters.
reply