My guess is that they will raise the "just kidding" card.

I have "my" office at the university.

I expect that I can be relocated to another office with a month of advance notice. Also cleanup, fire security check and fixing water leakage while I'm not there.

I don't expect that someone else will provide the keys of "my" office to the biology department when they have to keep a few sheeps during the weekend.

The image of a bunch of sheep pooing all over your office while you are not watching is the best metaphor I've heard for AI agents in a long time!

> They have even created hybrids of matter and antimatter, in which a nucleus containing protons is orbited by negatively charged antiprotons. In short, you can have regular hydrogen, muonic hydrogen, kaonic hydrogen, antiprotonic hydrogen, and so on.

Most of them live for a very short time, less than a millisecond. If you want to start with something that you can buy and put on your desktop try https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heavy_water But beware that it's almost identical to normal water. (The other variants discussed in the article are more different but very expensive and short lived.)

Birds are the decendadants of only one branch of dinosaurs, so in the best case we can only get one/a few.

My guess is mostly yes. There are a lot of guess and different resuls from different methods to reconstruct the tree, but I guess mostly yes.

My guess is that the main problem is money. It would be super expensive, take a few years/decades and get $0.

Red cells have no nuclei, so we are [un]lucky.

It's a nice extension of the plane to get some results. For example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B%C3%A9zout%27s_theorem (Gemini recommends me this video, but I didn't see it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5OYLnMyesX4&t ). The idea is that in the complex protective plane, two lines intersect in exactly a point, and two circles intersect in exactly 4 points (yes 4). It's very easy to count intersections there, so after you counted them there you can try to count how many of them are in the usual plane and how many are "fake" intersections in the extension.

There are many similar results, but this is one of the most easy to understand.

wrong url

>> A more serious irony is that the automatic control system has been put in place because it can do the job better than the operator, yet the operator is being asked to monitor that it is working effectively.

Automatic control is good for standard case, and the expected errors. For weird cases, for now humans are better to detect them and press the big red button.

It's funny that I'm reading this while rewatching Chernobyl. Never underestimate the ability of bureaucracy to completely fuck things up.

The computer doesn't know we're running a test!

Ironically, these models have demonstrated awareness that they are in tests and chosen to act in ways that maximise their chances of deployment.

Except experience shows they aren't. Experience shows that when humans are just pressing "ok" 99% of the time they'll press it 100% of the time and completely miss the other cases.

This is a matter of appropriate training and regular refreshing over time.

The best known example is the Japanese method of "Pointing and Calling/Naming" in their Train safety protocols but has been adapted to other industries too - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pointing_and_calling

These fall under "Behaviour Based Safety" (BBS) training methodologies and use techniques like "Check-backs", "Call-outs", "STAR" etc.

The better an automatic control is, the fewer mistakes it makes, the fewer times the human needs to react, the more lax and less vigilant the human becomes -- and less skilled when they need to step in. Source: https://imgur.com/a/Vj2TaDz

Of course there's a trade off, at some point the automated system has a lower failure rate than expert human systems meaning even if an event does happen it still occurs less than if a human were at the helm.

I mostly agree, but for example Andrea https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrea is a masculine name in Italian and a feminine name in Spanish. Here in Argentina it's mostly feminine, but if someone has many Italian ancestors, it may be masculine.

> It is part of the Italian male names ending in a, some others being Elia (Elias), Enea (Aeneas), Luca (Lucas), Mattia (Matthias), Nicola (Nicholas), Tobia (Tobias).

Edit: "Here in Argentina it's mostly masculine" -> "feminine"

The masculine/feminine question of the name Andrea is made weirder by the fact it literally derives from the Greek word for ‘adult male’ (andros)

More likely it is not derived directly from "andros", but from the feminine noun "andreia", which means courage or virility.

So the original grammatical gender was feminine, hence the -a termination.

This page https://wage.is/marshall-islands/ claims the average is US$168000 per year and the median US$9600 per year. [My guess is that the poverty line is close to US$5000 per year, probably higher.] This program adds US$800 per year. So it's a "universal partial basic income" instead of a "universal total basic income".

In all the discussion I remember, "universal basic income" == "universal total basic income" but perhaps I was not paying too much attention.

Multiple % of the population live on <$3/day.

This payment is 37% of the poverty line. Poverty has been reduced from 7.2% to 1.3%. https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/0997063042125181...