Check in your settings whether you have disabled the visibility of bot responses. This can happen if bots replied to you and your settings are set to not see them.

This work using high-throughput combinatorial chemistry to find molecules to stop/revert aging is amazing. I have been looking it in the past few days. The authors screened 653,000 different compounds, I am very curious about how expensive this screening was.

I was not aware of DePinho but I am familiar with Schultz’s work. I thought that would get a Nobel prize for his work on non-canonical amino acids, but he hasn’t yet. I am now placing my bets, Ronald DePinho and Peter G. Schultz will win a Nobel prize.

The structure is shown in the full text:

I did not know of the term “open washing” before reading this article. Unfortunately it does seem like the pending EU legislation on AI has created a strong incentive for companies to do their best to dilute the term and benefit from the regulations.

There are some paragraphs in the article that illustrate the point nicely:

In 2024, the AI landscape will be shaken up by the EU’s AI Act, the world’s first comprehensive AI law, with a projected impact on science and society comparable to GDPR. Fostering open source driven innovation is one of the aims of this legislation. This means it will be putting legal weight on the term “open source”, creating only stronger incentives for lobbying operations driven by corporate interests to water down its definition.

[…] Under the latest version of the Act, providers of AI models “under a free and open licence” are exempted from the requirement to “draw up and keep up-to-date the technical documentation of the model, including its training and testing process and the results of its evaluation, which shall contain, at a minimum, the elements set out in Annex IXa” (Article 52c:1a). Instead, they would face a much vaguer requirement to “draw up and make publicly available a sufficiently detailed summary about the content used for training of the general-purpose AI model according to a template provided by the AI Office” (Article 52c:1d).

If this exemption or one like it stays in place, it will have two important effects: (i) attaining open source status becomes highly attractive to any generative AI provider, as it provides a way to escape some of the most onerous requirements of technical documentation and the attendant scientific and legal scrutiny; (ii) an as-yet unspecified template (and the AI Office managing it) will become the focus of intense lobbying efforts from multiple stakeholders (e.g., [12]). Figuring out what constitutes a “sufficiently detailed summary” will literally become a million dollar question.

Thank you for pointing out Grayjay, I had not heard of it. I will look into it.

Thank you being around, bringing this nice community here, and helping with the federation!! 😁

Jajaja, sí, soy Mexicano 😁

🥳 Muchas gracias!

I find it satisfying to see the graph come down :)

Yes, sorry, there was some serious lagg in fetching posts from Lemmy World that persisted for several days and accumulated a 1-week delay.

But after upgrading Mander it is now fetching data from LW quite rapidly and it should be back in-sync in about a day and a half from now.

If you are curious about the ranking algorithm, there is some info here: https://join-lemmy.org/docs/contributors/07-ranking-algo.html

Amazing work! Thanks a lot!! Took me a few days to get to it but I have upgraded now and it looks great 😄

Awesome! The one with the sustained source loop is my favorite:

Also, the one that shoots out flames paints a picture similar to how a synchrotron behaves, shooting out X-rays into the beamlines as the electron bunches move around.

Upon looking into it closer, the synchrotron is a bit of a mixture of those two concepts - the source loop (booster ring) that is fed by the linear accelerator, and then the larger loop (storage room) that feeds X-rays the beamlines. Of course, many details differ, but still it is interesting to notice the similarities !

Ah, I see what you mean.

The experiment showed that the CO2 gas was an efficient absorber of some form of radiant energy that came from the sun. We now know that this energy is infrared radiation. This radiation is emitted by hot bodies, and the sun emits a lot of it.

But yes, you are correct in that her experiment was not about the greenhouse effect itself - which includes more complicated interactions such as the reflection and emission of IR from the earth’s surface. But, still, the absorption of IR by CO2 is a very important component. And her observations - using the sun as the source of the infrared - is also a very relevant observation. This is because:

• Infrared light can carry heat energy from one hot body to another
• A large amount of the heat transfer from the sun to the earth comes in the form of infrared light
• CO2, which is present in the atmosphere in a significant amount, is a strong absorber of infrared light

So I don’t think her work is irrelevant. It is very relevant. But I do think that the title “Scientists understood physics of climate change” is stretched because this experiment by itself is not enough to describe all of the complexity of the green house effect and climate change.

If carbon dioxide (CO2) simply absorbed energy, including sunlight, without re-emitting it, it could lead to cooling at the Earth’s surface. This is because the absorbed energy would not be radiated back to the surface, resulting in a net loss of energy from the Earth-atmosphere system.

Hmm, I don’t follow the argument. If the CO2 and other atmospheric molecules were unable to re-emit the light, they would need to dissipate the excess energy via non-radiative processes. So the main transfer of energy to the surroundings would be via collisions with other molecules. The density of molecules is greater as you approach the surface, and the density in space is very very low. So there are many more molecules to collide with that move the energy in the direction of the surface, and there is no easy pathway to get the heat out of the earth, other than hot molecules diffusing into space.

So, unless there is an important hole in my reasoning, removing the radiative pathway would ultimately result in a hotter earth because a larger percentage of the energy of light is trapped.

I think that the main problem in your comment is that it does not account for what happens to the energy that is absorbed. This energy does not disappear - you need to account for it.

If the timing is right, I would bring a mushroom grow bag with mushrooms sprouting.

If not… probably my radiacode gamma spectrometer and some of my radioactive items. Maybe a clock with radium painted dials and a piece of trinitite. I think that there are many different points of discussion that can be of interest to a broad audience (radioactivity, spectroscopy, electronics, US labor law story of the radium girls, nuclear explosions, background radiation… etc). As a bonus I can bring a UV flash light and show the radium fluorescence. Adults love UV flash lights.

Dragonfruit lemonade (agua de pitahaya) is delicious!

First of all, congratulations for bringing a baby girl into this world!! You must be really excited! I am very happy for you!

This looks very cool. I set up a wiki (https://ibis.mander.xyz/) and I will make an effort to populate it with some Lemmy lore and interesting science/tech 😄 Hopefully I can set some time aside and help with a tiny bit of code too.

Thank you for the positivity 💚 I wholeheartedly agree!

Drama and negativity drives engagement, and this form of engagement can easily trigger a feedback loop in which negativity keeps piling on and voices of support are practically muted.

We are participating in an open source project that has some very ambitious goals. Things can be messy, mistakes happen, there are risks, and people have many different opinions and moods. Heated discussions can be a healthy part of the process. But, once the dust is allowed to settle for a bit, it is good to remember that we are humans and that we are here because we have some shared goals.

I think the majority of people around here are kind and have a positive outlook, but perhaps it is more motivating to speak out when we have negative comments than positive ones. So, thank you for taking the time to write this positive message!

Profit? What’s that? No no, that’s never a motive. We only want the world to be a better place thanks to our wonderful technology.

Yeah. Claims about potential health effects can be very persuasive.

It is a factual claim that something could go wrong, or that we have a gap in our understanding, and the outcome of that may be detrimental to our health. We can’t disprove this because it is true, and so what we need to do is to assess risks in a balanced manner. It is also a factual claim that a de-novo mutation could occur and produce a toxic strain, or maybe we do not understand something about a plant that we commonly eat and we later find out that it is carcinogenic. Our understanding evolves over time, and risks are everywhere.

But most politicians are not so concerned with painting a balanced picture. The claim “a risk exists” is always factual and that is good enough to push an agenda.

In my opinion this does not in itself mean that one political position is better than the other. Maybe the health claims are not a good argument, but there are many other valid reasons to want to stop GMO corn.

You can find the document submitted by Mexico here: https://www.iatp.org/sites/default/files/2024-03/MexUSMCAInitialEng.pdf

On the point of transgenic varieties having a negative impact on local strain diversity, I think the concerns are valid. The introduction of high-yielding GMOs can lead to displacement of local varieties and ultimately decrease diversity.

I skimmed through the document to see if they make some good points about the health impact of GMOs. From what I can gather, the arguments are:

• Glyphosate herbicides are commonly used when farming GMO corn. There is no global consensus on the potential long-term health effects associated with exposure to glyphosates and formulations that contain it.

• Techniques to modify the genome are not perfect. Often, viruses are used, and some viral proteins could be inserted into the genome. Other things could go wrong. Ultimately, you may have an unexpected phenotype that turns out to make the plant toxic.

• They argue that the GMO corn has a worse nutritional profile than native varieties. This worse nutritional profile ultimately has a negative health impact.

Personally… Maybe the glyphosate claim I can get somewhat behind but the other two health claims I don’t find compelling. The risks over-stated, and their use of citations is not great.

I have an example of their use of citations that made me chuckle… They write:

Mexican corn, mainly native corn, has a better quality in nutritional terms, including compounds that prevent diseases and promote human health.⁷⁵

And the citation reads:

⁷⁵ In Mexico there are scientific compilations and files that bring together the aforementioned literature.

Ah, well, thank you for that 😅