I don’t understand your attitude. The slaughter of hundreds of children seems genuinely inherently upsetting and unacceptable to me. I don’t see why an element of negligence would make this something to just “not pontificate on” in a court of law or in public discourse.

Arguing about who's the largest group of traumatized children and which groups are less significant trivializes all childhood trauma.

Don't these kids believe they're protesting the destruction of the job market? Isn't that an understandable belief, given that AI company CEOs have publicly predicted they'll make it happen?

Connotations are by far the biggest difference between these two substances.

One is routinely prescribed and the other is illegal, so yeah, I guess that's connotation, right?

They are equally legal in the US (Schedule II). Label will usually say something like "Methamphetamine, generic for Desoxyn." It is, however, much harder to find a doctor that will give you a prescription as compared to other stimulants, and some pharmacies will refuse to fill it.

Believe it or not, marijuana (since 2018 only strains containing significant levels of delta-9 THC) is illegal in the US in almost all circumstances, but methamphetamine is legal with a prescription.

I mean, yeah. Their point is that the substances are extremely chemically similar to the point where they can be treated as different intensities of the same drug.

Yeah that is what I was getting at in my first reply. Amphetamine is a party drug, meth is what junkies on the street use. The guy I responded to said meth, which carries a lot more stigma, and together with all the other negatively charged statements he made is just abhorrent, basically calling her a junkie that deserved to die.

Nearly every person you have shared CIRS info with was formally diagnosed with CIRS by a doctor? Or were you the one diagnosing them?

I'm not a doctor. I just recognized symptom clusters consistent with my personal experience and shared information that would hopefully lead them to reach for effective treatment. Additionally, I only speak up when someone expresses frustration that their health provider has no clue what is going on.

Some nonzero percentage of these people could have been helped cheaper and more easily earlier on to prevent them from getting to this point in the first place.

> They got to have their say. Editorial published, made international news. I imagine all the conference attendees read it if they cared. Seems like a non-issue.

If it's such a non-issue, why should they have been forcefully ejected from the premises over it? And why do you feel so strongly that they should have been?

> And why do you feel so strongly that they should have been?

I don't. It makes literally no difference to me; especially since I've skimmed through the actual paper they were handing out anyway.

I'm just trying to figure out if there is actually an issue here or whether we're just having an anti-Trump session. And I'm arguing with JCC which is its own reward.

> I'm arguing with JCC which is its own reward

I don’t think any of your comments deserve to be downvoted, for what it’s worth.

The downvoters are their own mysterious nonverbal community. Most of the time I don't see them as part of the conversation.

It probably could have been, but how likely is that compared to with the AI agent? I'd assume (and I'm ready to look like an idiot if I'm wrong) that the humans are trained to send the verification code to the email address on file, rather than any address the client asks them to. I'd certainly assume most of them are more afraid of the consequences than the AI is.

For sure. Social engineering attacks on human support staff are common and well known, but the skill floor is non-trivial; you need to actually be able to convince a human of your ruse.

Having a support agent likely made it easier to enumerate the vuln, and certainly made it easier to scale out exploitation once it was discovered.

I wouldn't even call it "promising but inconclusive" so much as "not conclusively a dead-end for further research". In a single-arm open-label study, with no blinding, both the participants and the researchers know who's getting what. You need a placebo and double-blinding for comparison against the active group and to adjust for any ways in which the researchers may have unwittingly influenced the results. (Or perhaps even wittingly, when there are conflicts of interest. I spent half a minute looking up this study and didn't see any statement attesting that there were none.)

Worse: go look at the MMSE. I bet that, at least for patients with reasonably functional memory, taking the MMSE and then taking it again a few weeks later from the same examiner will tend to improve the score the second time.

One study rarely makes or breaks anything. Creatine has lots of studies going back 10-20 years.

I wish it the scoring readout at the end would display the LLM's descriptions of the commands I shouldn't have approved. I approved the rm -rf Projects command because I thought the LLM had correctly described that it would delete everything in the Projects folder. Clearly I misread that in my hurry to answer prompts (I knew what the command would do and I guess I hallucinated that the AI had explained it), but I'd like to see what it was that I misread.

Playing this game made me very glad I don't agentmaxx.