Firefox has lost the plot, Orion is close but still has the odd UI bug that makes it tough to recommend, Safari is just Safari.
There is no truly good, independent, feature complete browser out there right now if you want to avoid Chrome and have something that a) works and b) isn't hostile to the userbase.
Brave at the very least said they'd keep supporting Manifest v2 extensions, though not sure how you'd acquire them anymore unless Chrome web store has kept the listings up.
So sharing an opinion you do not agree with is now called "promoting"? WoW
You no longer need to install extension that often are compromised, its Shield & Privacy is able to block YouTure Shorts and what not, no other browser does that or it does and Google find a way to bypass it.
We do not have access to the Shield lists, so neither does Google.
I used Firefox for years until it become useless, things might have changed now but too late.
And because I do not agree with your pov, I won't call it promoting Firefox, you do whatever pleases you!!
You're right that you probably don't need a notification to make coffee, but people are using it to create automations in Home Assistant so that it actually makes coffee for them.
So that foreign nationals think it's a smart idea to move to the US and do research for us. So that when they complete their PhD they want to stay permanently and continue doing research that benefits the US. So that despite country humanity gets the smartest people together doing work that might benefit the entire world?
A full scholarship to somebody that decides to move back to their country because of racism and xenophobia still directly benefits the US if that research was done here. The smartest students in the world passing on the US does not help the US. With more policies like this the smartest students in the US might move to other countries so they can work with a larger pool.
How many promising American-born researchers are we missing out on because we give away valuable training and research opportunities to foreigners?
Don’t forget that America’s technological heyday—when Silicon Valley was built in the first place—came during and shortly after the Johnson Reed era of immigration restriction. Companies like Apple, Intel, etc., were founded between 1960-1980 (the decade on each side of when the foreign born population hit the historical low in 1970).
I’m sorry I’m smart enough to separate the two distinct concepts of “what US government policy should be” and “what personally benefits foreigners like me.”
Responses like yours really make me think that the bottom line for many people is doing whatever benefits foreigners.
Apple was founded by the son of an immigrant, Intel's 3rd employee was an immigrant, and have you been to Silicon Valley in the last 30 years? Half of the engineers are foreign-born. That's the reason why Silicon Valley is what it is.
A great deal of effort and money is spent running studies. I'm inclined to assume the experts in the field are more aware of the tradeoffs of that decision and how to mitigate the downsides than probably all, but certainly the overwhelming majority, of people commenting on this thread.
Someone who needs to ask an LLM will not be helpful in trying to point out something they missed.
They're not pointing out something the researchers missed, they're pointing out something the people in this thread confidently hyping the results are missing. I'm certain the researchers are familiar with the limitations of the models they used (is it bad that the incentives of science and science journalism leads to overoptimistic coverage that hint at groundbreaking implications without explaining to lay readers what the unknowns are? Probably, but that's not these researchers' faults).
The average person in this thread, however, would probably be better informed by asking an LLM for context. They'd be even better informed by taking a few weeks to work through a textbook on cancer biology, but realistically they won't.
My horse in the race is that I'm annoyed by overenthusiastic comments that display a lack of understanding of the history of cancer treatment, and I'm going to be even more annoyed in a few months when the rounds of "haven't we had 1000 cures to cancer posted to HN??? why aren't we using any of them???" start showing up again. I'd rather encourage informed, skeptical optimism.
No, they aren't: the second is irrelevant and unphysical. Highly-pressurised cores? Really? "Dense", I could buy, but:
• If there's blood supply, then (A) it can't be a much higher pressure than the blood pressure (unless there's some Rube Goldberg machine involving active transport), and (B) the tumour is reachable by treatments like this;
• And if there isn't blood supply, then the tumour's core is necrotic, and a treatment to kill the dead cells wouldn't do anything anyway. (Sure, killing the tissue that isolates a lump of necrotic flesh from the rest of the body might cause new and exciting problems, but somehow I think those might be preferable to incurable breast cancer.)
The second is just not a relevant criticism. The third, if it's an actual issue, can probably be worked around by tweaking the molecule slightly – and if not, suppressing the immune system isn't that difficult (it's a known side-effect of many chemotherapies). The first, if it's an issue, can be avoided by injecting the medicine near the target site.
I agree that this treatment might not work in humans, but all the AI's done is taken a generic list of potential concerns, and inserted technobabble to try to make it match the scenario. If you want generic criticism, see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47209076: at least that's true.
You're incredibly wrong. You also cited my own comment at me.
The problem of high interstitial pressure (not blood pressure) interfering with drug delivery in tumors is basic cancer biology. If you don't believe me, here's:
A review published in a reputable oncology journal, with over 100 citations, entirely about targeting interstitial pressure, with an abstract leading with "Tumor interstitial pressure is a fundamental feature of cancer biology. Elevation in tumor pressure affects the efficacy of cancer treatment."
https://aacrjournals.org/cancerres/article/74/10/2655/592612...
Another review, also a reputable oncology journal, 1000 citations, about tumor stroma more generally, which lists high interstitial pressure as a mechanism by which tumors limit drug access and includes a nice diagram (Figure 2a).
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41571-018-0007-1
That's how basic this fact is. 1000 citation reviews in Nature have beautiful fucking diagrams of it. I'm pretty sure it was in the textbook of my undergraduate biology class.
If you don't know shit, don't talk shit. People will criticize LLMs for being overconfident while writing essays from their ass.
I did briefly consider that this was referring to intercellular fluid, but "highly pressurized cores" is a terrible way to describe high IFP, so I rejected that interpretation. I thought the LLM was "trying to" refer to some kind of dense-walled cyst. (Of course, the LLM wasn't actually trying to say anything at all.) (And I think my argument there about osmotic pressure, oxygen diffusion and tissue necrosis is correct: hypoxia's already an issue for tumours, and there are only so many heroic workarounds available before a cell's only option is to die; and since blood pressure is higher than even the high IFP found in tumours, that's the appropriate bound for the argument I made.)
Your interpretation leaves the LLM's discussion of stroma as a non-sequitur, since that is not why high IFP causes problems for drug uptake; and at that point, I think you're just substituting a correct statement in place of the LLM's superficially-meaningful nonsense. I'll go through it again, this time focusing on the names assigned to each point:
"1. The Scale of the Human Body" talks about the excretory system. The part of the explanation comparing "tiny" to "vast" is at the very least misleading, but I would call it outright wrong. And yes: I am also thinking of all those "well actually, the geometry of the circulatory system" interpretations that make it technically correct, but… if a biology teacher explained it like this, would you really think they were teaching it properly? (I mean, seriously, calling "The human liver, spleen, and kidneys" "the reticuloendothelial system"‽)
"2. Tumor Architecture", under your charitable interpretation, isn't talking about "architecture" at all.
"3. Immune System Differences" is at least named right; but a treatment that only works in immunosuppressed patients is still a treatment. You could imagine a cancer drug sufficiently-effective that it is worth suppressing the immune system just so you can administer it. (I don't think it's likely that this is one, but that's for experiment to decide. And if the patient's immunocompromised anyway…)
> You also cited my own comment at me.
Oops. That does make me feel foolish. In my defence: it didn't occur to me that anyone could think you were saying the same things as the LLM, because what you were saying was correct, and what the LLM was saying was nonsense.
Although, if you thought you were saying the same thing… is the LLM's "tumor architecture" supposed to refer to the tumour microenvironment‽ That would explain the stroma mention, but… wow that is not a sensible way to say that. I continue to assert that the LLM's badly-plagiarising some papers, lecture notes and/or textbooks, blended with bad pop-sci analogies to the point of incoherence.
Funnily enough, now that I've gone back and reread the LLM's explanations, I've decided that point 1, the one you were least critical of, is garbage whereas points 2 and 3 are fine.
1. Mice usually clear drugs faster, not slower, than humans, so either point 1 is wrong or I'm missing something, and either way it's a bad explanation.
2. This point is fine. The use of the phrase "tumor architecture" in this context is common, for example this random paper https://www.cell.com/cancer-cell/fulltext/S1535-6108(12)0008... and several papers cited by the Nature review. I don't get your problem with the phrase "highly pressurized cores" is, or what you're calling a non-sequitur.
Maybe you're arguing that it's an oversimplification to imply that xenografts are just not dense or pressurized enough, and it would be better to emphasize that tumor microenvironments affect drug delivery and aren't accurately modeled, which... sure, I suppose, though it seems like a nitpick.
3. Come on, you can't possibly think this is a valid criticism, and not just a thing you made up to have something to say.
> I continue to assert that the LLM's badly-plagiarising some papers, lecture notes and/or textbooks, blended with bad pop-sci analogies to the point of incoherence.
Then please, strive to do better!
I mean that in earnest, not just as an insult. You hate reading bullshit? Me too. If you're not familiar with the term "tumor architecture", it takes five seconds to put it into Google Scholar before you start insisting it's made up. Reducing the amount of bullshit on this site is everyone's duty.
> Mice usually clear drugs faster, not slower, than humans
… I knew that. That was one of the few things here I knew. But I read the LLM explanation and it looked right, so I started questioning other things instead, and got myself confused enough about basic anatomy that I didn't realise I was confused. (At one point, I decided that "blood goes through the liver and kidneys at the same rate as it goes through the heart" was a reasonable approximation, which is obviously false.)
And this despite that I was specifically watching out for LLM bullshit, and trying my hardest not to believe it. I guess this is evidence for my claim that LLMs are a terrible way for non-experts to learn about a topic, but wow, I was not playing the role in this argument that I thought I was.
> Maybe you're arguing that it's an oversimplification
Nope. That sounds like my genre of pedantry, but I didn't (and don't) understand the topic well enough to make that argument, so I wasn't. I was arguing that the description paints a picture of something unrealistic.
> Come on, you can't possibly think this is a valid criticism,
It's the criticism I fact-checked most thoroughly! So… yes, I just made it up to have something to say. (Honestly, the "just inject it near the tumour site" thing is extremely dubious, too: that would only work if you somehow eliminated blood flow through the tumour.)
> If you're not familiar with the term "tumor architecture", it takes five seconds to put it into Google Scholar
I put it into Internet Archive Scholar, forgot the quotes, and it just showed me machine-learning papers; so since I'd never heard of it before, I assumed the term was was made up. Lesson learned. (The term is much rarer than "tumour microenvironment" in the literature, but it does appear once on the Wikipedia page for tumor microenvironment, so I'm not sure how I missed it.) I can't figure out what the term actually means, but it does clearly mean something, and has done since at least 1971 (and probably earlier). doi:10.1136/bjo.78.11.871 sort of explains, but not really.
You mentioned textbooks in another comment. Do you have a textbook recommendation? I think I clearly need remedial study.
I expect an extension or Python script that ask it to generate 100 random complex questions and then proceeds to ask for answers until your limits on the free plan are reached on a loop
amazing comment from a 13 year old account. really embodying the spirit of the HN guidelines. thanks for the warm welcome.
so, what exactly, are you basing your accusation on?
was it me saying "use noscript and reader mode" or maybe "people have different opinions"? or just by nature of having created an account after you created yours?
this sort of accusation is what will drive HN to be a shit community to participate in. just accuse anyone you slightly disagree with as being a bot/ai
im not even sure what your issue, or rezonants issue with me even is! all i said was different people have different opinions, and you two are crawling up my ass about it. lets hope we never have to talk to each other about anything slightly important.
I find your surefooted statements about what hacker news is, will become, or ever was to be worth little seeing as you have only just become a part of this community.
Might I recommend leaving the snark at home and approaching your interactions here with good faith instead of acting like you're the authoritative arbiter of community interactions?
>Might I recommend leaving the snark at home and approaching your interactions here with good faith
the highest irony, coming from someone who literally cross-examined me and then insulted me rather than engage with my comments at all! can you seriously not see how ridiculous that is?
somehow i am the one who needs to approach interactions in good faith?
lmao. no. you dont get good faith from me. if you want good faith, dont start your conversations with an interrogation and follow it with an insult.
Your original post was written as if you were a long time community member here and had an investment in how the community works and yet were a brand new green account. Something you probably don't know if you haven't spent enough time here is that it is indeed quite common to use a green alt to post comments that you don't want associated with your main profile. It is so common and allowable in fact that most users doing so just call them throwawayXYZ, as in that exact pattern. So I'm used to seeing this.
But it didn't make sense why you would do that for this particular post, especially while seeming to assert some kind of authority and familiarity with the cultural norms of the HN community. So I asked you about it, not aiming to negate or reduce your point but rather to learn about why you would use an alt account.
Instead of simply replying that you were in fact new and this was not an alt, rather that you were a long time lurker and a first time poster, you jumped down my throat and the throats of everyone else involved in this thread, being toxic and abrasive in every way possible. Both of my posts here which you think are at odds with each other are in service of encouraging you to check yourself, because you are being unreasonable; not meant as an insult demanding you to clap back. "You must be great at parties" should prompt you to step back and think of what passers by would think of your behavior and demeanor, because I'm giving you a social hint that a lot of people will find that behavior off putting. That statement is not a prompt for you to grow more vitriolic and upset, and continue the behavior I'm trying to point out is not going to serve you well in a social space like this.
This is my problem with it. Put in a mute button if you're going to do this, otherwise it's just user hostile. No problem with stylized websites and fun animations.
reply