Good point.

But still, the 30% efficient supercomputer.

It is how it's generally taught in schools, which is unfortunate.

Nope. RNA is chemically different: different sugar in the backbone, and there are wayyyy more than 4 RNA bases (like 12 iirc)

Something called a "lesion" around a base mismatch, basically a bubble in the strand pairing. It can introduce kinks in the helix, and generally is the result of mutation in one strand.

The article does specify that it would report if the newest version of the firmware for the CPU family is not installed, so it doesn't seem like this is that particular kind of BS.

I mean honestly? If you're not even keeping full cells from the prey, I think we can give it to them. Lil guy, you can photosynthesize. No need to bother them with the asterisks.

Jeeeeez that was a lot. I get the sense that the kernel has worked as well as it has because people saw it as separate from geopolitics and so didnt discuss them...now that politics has wedged its way in I feel like it may have opened that door permanently.

Well we wouldn't want Proton, it would be 2000x less lightweight than electron! /s

It seems to me that Tauri is maybe a better direction to invest resources in than a direct electron-but-Firefox. Its lighter weight and better sandboxed, and can presumably be configured to run with a Gecko engine instead of a chromium-based webview. I have no idea its status, but geckoview does seem to exist.

To be honest, their demand that OpenSUSE rebrand left a bad taste in my mouth. I get the logic behind it, but the time for that passed a long time ago (probably about 15 years ago).

tl;dr: science is in the eye of the beholder, you can only know if it's science if the methods are transparent and you have access to data, as well as critiques from unbiased parties.

This thread seems to have formed two sides:

1. unless it's published, peer reviewed and replicated it's not science, and
2. LeCun is being elitist, science doesn't have to be published. This point of view often is accompanied by something about academic publishing being inaccessible or about corporate/private/closed science still being science.

I would say that "closed"/unpublished science may be science, but since peer review and replication of results are the only way we can tell if something is legitimate science, the problem is that we simply can't know until a third party (or preferably, many third parties) have reviewed it.

There are a lot of forms that review can take. The most thorough is to release it to the world and let anyone read and review it, and so it and the opinions of others with expertise in the subject are also public. Anyone can read both the publications and response, do their own criticism, and know whether it is science.

If "closed" science has been heavily reviewed and critiqued internally, by as unbiased a party as possible, then whoever has access to the work and critique can know it's science, but the scientific community and the general public will never be able to be sure.

The points folks have made about individuals working in secret making progress actually support this; I'll use Oppenheimer as an example.

In the 40s, no one outside the Manhattan project knew how nuclear bombs were made. Sure, they exploded, but no one outside that small group knew if the reasoning behind why they exploded was correct.

Now, through released records, we know what the supporting theory was, and how it was tested. We also know that subsequent work based on that theory (H-bomb development, etc.) and replication (countries other than the US figuring out how to make nukes, in some cases without access to US documents on how it was originally done) was successful and supported the original explanations of why it worked. So now we all know that it was science.

Photoshopped, unfortunately. They change, but not that much.

Pro tip: use zotero. Its an open-source bibliography program, you can export the entire bibliography at once in whatever format you want.