can you explain this a bit more? i dont know a lot about this use case but it sounds pretty interesting

I’m not sure what there is to explain.

Seems pretty straightforward.

while it hasn't aged the best, it is quiet entertaining

I never totally connected with Holy Grail though I liked/like it a lot. I probably to put Life of Brian at the top of the heap although it’s probably somewhat less known.

No no, The Meaning of Life is the best one, how can there be any doubt of that!

"Every sperm is sacred..." (https://youtu.be/fUspLVStPbk)

or

"Can we have your liver?" (https://youtu.be/Sp-pU8TFsg0)

:)

yes it has

This isn't an argument, it's just contradiction.

No it isn’t.

Yes it is.

apologies, I am talking about the Flying Circus, not Holy Grail, which I should have clarified on my original comment. obviously the group has done some groundbreaking work and I do love that, but sensibilities have definitely changed since then. I don't hold that against them, but it can be jarring to see

Are you sure that being sensitive in those terms would be a good idea, and not instead be giving value to lower reactions?

You should judge a fair assessment of reality, not a self-fed "sensation".

don't really understand the down votes, but I am very open to hearing why it seems to be a controversial statement. the show has some bigoted scenes and I am not defending that, obviously. I am simply talking about how I like the creative premises of the absurdist comedy

The downvotes are probably because there's no justification. If you want to say that some masterpiece from the past "hasn't aged well", you need to back that opinion with some arguments or facts.

Also the typo ("quiet" instead of "quite") and the absence of capitals at the beginning of sentences, or points at the end, give out a general impression of carelessness.

> the show has some bigoted scenes

Such as.

oh I see, I am talking about The Flying Circus, not the movie. The casual use of slurs is jarring to me personally

Still cannot remember of any bigoted use of slurs in Monty Python's work.

LLM among us

they will ddos the open internet to the point where only big tech will be able to afford to host even the most basic websites? is that the endgame?

i was thinking the same thing. it might be the case that the scrapers are result of the web search feature in llms?

iphones on trees

the jokes just write themselves

I just want to be able to splice songs in a playlist

i always thought that its valuable when you have enough data from an insurance pov? is that a myth?

For the vast majority of people lifestyle is much more deterministic than genetics. There are a few exceptions causing relatively deterministic adult onset diseases: Huntington, APOA4 homozygosity, FAP, BRACA mutants. These are rare however.

> For the vast majority of people lifestyle is much more deterministic than genetics.

How much of lifestyle do you think is determined by genetics, if any, and how much of that link do we currently understand?

I feel the concern around genetic data privacy has normally been the risk of unknown future stuff, rather than any current known vectors. I'm not saying it's a legitimate fear, but I don't know if it's one that is placated with "we can't currently do anything bad".

The impact of lifestyle is undeniable and large. Good genes will not protect your body from alcoholism. And if I were a betting man, I would bet against determinism emerging from a better understanding of combinatorial genetics.

I do think over time we will get a clearer picture of risk predisposition based on your entire genetic profile. However, I believe that genetic predisposion will remain a relatively small contributor for most disease states.

That's fair, thanks for the response, appreciated.

I agree that genetic predisposition will remain a small contributor for most disease states. However, I (an idiot who has no authority or experience with anything relating to genetics) feel we're going to learn a lot about how our genetics indirectly influence our behaviour and decision making though.

I think it'll be a boring dystopia: the biggest problem will be that the more complex, distant relationships between genetics and life outcomes are discovered, the more opportunities the bodies responsible for health will have to say "well we have to protect ourselves from the uncertainty, and that's going to cost you/be profitable for us".

In the US, health insurers are restricted to using the following for pricing insurance, and genetics is not one:

https://www.healthcare.gov/how-plans-set-your-premiums/

All the other types of insurance (life/disability/etc) are free to ask you to provide DNA if they think it would be useful for underwriting. The fact that they do not means the DNA is not providing enough signal to be worth considering in the underwriting process.

Or they already have it, the same way any insurance company can look up how much coverage my policy has.

If you're worried about this, you also need to be worried about them knowing what zip code you were born in.

That's what 23andMe thought too.

board probably thinks the assets remaining after the bankruptcy pays off the creditors is more than the $8/share?