351–360 of 394 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isn’t everything naturally occurring? It all originates from earth, where else would it come from?
Such a definition of “naturally occurring” is useless, and thus pointless to entertain. Besides, it doesn’t “all” originate from Earth. If you want to be really uselessly pedantic, nothing on Earth originated on Earth.
Since it is naturally occurring, it isn't patentable. Which means it is less likely that companies will develop a commercial product from it. Why pay to get FDA approval, if you don't get a government granted monopoly on it afterwards? This is one problem with using patents as the mechanism to incentivise development of medicine.
If the molecule itself is not patentable, the process of efficient extraction or synthesis may be. So, if somebody can come up with it, they may have a thriving business. The substance in question is a peptide. It's not something you simply extract from a plant using a solvent. OTOH, being a peptide, it's likely easy enough to produce in a genetically engineered bacterium or yeast. Efficient extraction may remain a p…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Such a definition of “naturally occurring” is useless, and thus pointless to entertain. Besides, it doesn’t “all” originate from Earth. If you want to be really uselessly pedantic, nothing on Earth originated on Earth.
What percentage came from the sun and what percentage came from without the sun?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not sure what this adds, I believe your grandma over any LLM
parse this in the way that makes it so I'm not being a jerk. Are you as prejudiced against weather models or just large-language ones? I have been waiting to ask someone this.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thanks for sharing! I have to admit I do not have the necessary brain cycles to spare today, but OCR processing is indeed of interest to me, and I will take a more in-depth look in the upcoming days. The idea of an exclusionary approach sounds interesting as well. I'll have to think about that a bit.
Check out WordNinja in case regex doesn't cut it! [0] [0]: https://github.com/keredson/wordninja
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think it comes down to the syntax being used to make regex. It is borderline an assembly language level of making them. Better language tools would make it easier for people to grok. Basically instead of using chars like ?^()$ and the like lets use words people understand.
It’s not just the syntax. Regex isn’t directly composable (unless you just mash together strings). They cannot define nested structures, I.e. no recursion. They can’t maintain context. We don’t need better language tools. Better parsers can, and already have, been implemented in libraries. I’d have a look at parser combinators.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I was looking for this comment! Not a doctor, but as I understand it muscle is roughly equivalent to fat as far as your heart’s workload is concerned. I thought I also read that muscle movement helps with blood return.
Muscle movement is also necessary for the limbic system to function.
Movement is required for the lymphatic system to function, excess muscle volume doesn’t help.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
For non-technical people, terms like Machine Learning, Algorithm, Automation, AI, Neural Networks and 'Magical Powers' are synonymous.. Journalists, marketing teams, and executives choose whichever term generates the most hype and clicks.
I like to describe my job as a software engineer as "wizardry" to people. With the way LLMs are writing code, it's only getting closer to writing actual spells.