Theoretically, the donor could die before the rabies infection developed into a disease. For example, in a car crash. IDK if this was ever the case. The incubation period is definitely long enough for this to be a plausible scenario.
Going by wikipedia, the incubation period can be up to three months. That isn't a particularly significant span of time if we're measuring how likely someone is to suffer an unexpected death. It's long enough that the possibility exists, but that's about all you can say.
But the question isn't "what are the odds someone who dies in this period has rabies" it's "what are the odds someone who died after being infected with rabies died before they started showing symptoms" so the rarity of people incubating rabies is irrelevant.
Further, rabies incubation is highly variable - symptoms may not appear for years.
Ironically, if you feed the symptoms of the donor into an AI and ask for differential diagnoses, it will tell you: "Is there any history of animal contact? In that case, consider rabies."
Iran's situation with water has always been precarious, hence the massive ancient system of channels and aqueducts, which was mostly destroyed by the Mongols in the 13th century.
I wonder if, today, the overall brain drain is contributing to the situation. Iranian engineers don't have to put up with the regime's shenanigans if they don't want to. How many of the people who could have managed the situation are abroad?
It's a combination of internal and external factors. Internally - wasting water and overpumping underground water table. Externally - climate change and Afghanistan damming couple of rivers flowing into Iran.
Yes, but as a general attitude, this is unrealistic, like ignoring the effects of drugs because they are voluntary. All these things (food, substances, sex, social media, etc) exist on an invisible spectrum of willpower vs circumstances for each individual. In practice, there's some subjective line in that spectrum across which society can't afford to just say "it's your fault, so I don't care" (though wealthy/isolated people can!).
> Am I alone in thinking that truck driving is an arduous job that ideally shouldn't be done by humans at all?
There are lots of people that do not have the capacity to move up the 'value chain'. All they are capable of doing are 'simple' jobs:
> To enlist in the Army, aspiring recruits typically must take the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery (ASVAB) test and earn a passing score. The ASVAB, with a maximum score of 99, requires a minimum score of 31 for Army enlistment.
> The ASVAB test encompasses various subject areas or subtests, including general science (GS), arithmetic reasoning (AR), word knowledge (WK), paragraph comprehension (PC), mathematics knowledge (MK), electronics information (EI), auto and shop information (AS), mechanical comprehension (MC), and assembling objects (AO).
If all/many of those jobs are automated away, how are those people supposed to make a living? It's possible to be 'too stupid' to even be in the military (or at least be in it and have a useful role).
Ideally you would also think about what the truck drivers would do in this new reality where they aren't just unemployed but rather unemployable.
Truck driver is the most numerous blue-collar profession in the US, if I remember correctly it counts several million people. I wouldn't expect all of them to become automotive AI model trainers overnight.
I agree completely, and I think it's only a matter of time until the short haul is completely autonomous. The trucking industry is slowly working themselves out of a job, and it's not just deplorable working conditions, or terrible pay, outright fraudulent schools, or the predatory trucking companies, it's also the rising cost and antipathy towards the very, very very critical role that truckers play in modern society.
This is a bit complicated even in Czechia, with its densest network of railways in the world.
Trains are most efficient when they are long. 30+ cars, ideally. Capacity of railway lines is limited and lines tend to be shared by passenger traffic as well, so freight mostly moves at night and short freight trains are economically unviable.
It might take a long time to gather enough stuff/containers to fill 30 freight cars in one particular railway head (obvious exceptions such as Port of Rotterdam apply). Which means that you may have to wait for 10 days before your shipment actually starts to move.
>long hours and days spent in loneliness, away from family and friends
Calling bullshit here. If they weren't doing that work, they probably would not, in fact, get extra time with family/friends.
>the need of humans to sleep and relax means that the trucks cannot legally move for majority of the day, thus there is a need to have more of them,
Team drives can cover a majority of the day if need be for long hauling. Short hauling/last mile is capped not so much by miles traveled, but cargo load and unload times.
N == 1, but I used to live in a block of flats with three truck driver families. All three marriages collapsed over their fathers' frequent absence from home.
You can say that they would have collapsed over something else if they stayed at home, but this is what the people themselves told me.
Driving to Spain and back takes two weeks. After two weeks of his absence "I felt like a young widow already", said Hana, the youngest of the wives.
Seriously, when I am in Italy, I think of ancient Rome most of the time. The country is just chock-full of Roman structures and you won't be walking for a long time before bumping into one.
When holidaying in Italy I had the luck to pick the day trip one day. Really glad I found Paestum (an ancient Greek city): it is every bit as captivating as Pompeii imo.
Went to Italy for the first time a few years ago and picked paestum randomly when we needed a break from Naples. Went back last year and will probably go again.
At one side, people are unhappy about AI, at the other side, who of those same people will stop using ChatGPT to write their work e-mails and assignments for them.
It looks like the "car problem" in yet another form. Many people will agree that our cities have become too car-centric and that cars take way too much public space, but few will give up their own personal car.
> who of those same people will stop using ChatGPT to write their work e-mails and assignments for them
Me. I never use AI to write content that I put my name to. I use AI in the same way that I use a search engine. In fact, that is pretty much what AI is -- a search engine on steroids.
Good. I can believe that a few people are principled enough, but principled people tend to be in a minority, regardless of the topic.
I am also a bit afraid of a future where the workload will be adjusted to heavy AI use, to the degree that a human working with his own head won't be able to satisfy the demands.
This happened around the 'car problem' too: how many jobs are in a walkable / bikeable distance now vs. 1925?
I don't think AI is comparable to cars. The problem with cars is that they necessarily use the commons. The more roads you build, the less space you have for trains, parks, housing, etc. AI isn't like that. I can continue to think for myself and look for ways to add value as a human even if everyone around me is using AI. And if that fails, if I can't find a way to compete with AI, if AI really is capable of doing everything that I can do as well as I can do it, why would I not want to use it?
Tell that to anyone who was hoping to upgrade their RAM or build a new system in the near future.
Tell that to anyone who's seen a noticeable spike in electricity prices.
Tell that to anyone who's seen their company employ layoffs and/or hiring freezes because management is convinced AI can replace a significant portion of their staff.
AI, like any new technology, is going to cost resources and growing pains during its adoption. The important question which we'll only really know years or decades from now is whether it is a net positive.
Nope, we have a lot more sprawl. Look at the old maps of cities and compare them to the current ones.
In Ostrava, where I live, worker's colonies were located right next to the factories or mines, within walking distance, precisely to facilitate easy access. It came with a lot of other problems (pollution), but "commute" wasn't really a thing. Even streetcars were fairly expensive, and most people would think twice before paying the fare twice a day.
Nowadays, there are still industrial zones around, but they tend to be located 5-10 km from the residential areas, far too far to walk.
Even leaving industry aside, how many kids you know walk to school, because it is in a walking distance from them?
I never use AI to write an email, and if I ever found out a coworker was using AI to sent emails to me I would never read those emails. It would be a tacit admission that the coworker in question did not have anything worth actually reading.
I started at a new job a few months back and I got an obviously AI-written reply to my manager's "welcome" email from some contractor type person who got CC'd on it. Fortunately I don't have to interact with the bozo in question, but it was really offputting.
I am a fairly prolific writer, having published ten books since 2018 and averaging some three articles per week, all of that next to my programming work.
But I understood quite early that I am a fluke of nature and many other people, including smart ones, really struggle when putting their words on paper or into Word/LibreWriter. A cardiologist who saved my wife's life is one of them. He is a great surgeon, but calling his writing mediocre would be charitable.
Such people will resort to AI if only to save time and energy.
That might drift in the future. I've actually found myself leaving small errors in sometimes since it suggests that I actually wrote it. I don't use literal em-dashes -- but I often use the manual version and have been doing so much longer than mainstream LLMs have been around. I also use a lot of bulleted lists -- both of which imply LLM usage. I take my writing seriously, even when it's just an internet comment. The idea that people might think I wrote with an LLM would be insulting.
But further and to the point, spelling / grammar errors might be a boutique sign of authenticity, much like fake "hand-made" goods with intentional errors or aging added in the factory.
Unless you are using a proprietary, dedicated grammar checker, auto grammar check is far from perfect and will miss some subject-verb agreement errors, incorrect use of idioms, or choppy flow. Particularly in professional environments where you are being evaluated, this can tank an otherwise solid piece of written work. Even online in HN comments, people will poke fun at grammar, and (while I don't have objective evidence for this) I have noticed that posts with poor grammar or misspellings tend to have less engagement overall. In a perfect world, this wouldn't matter, but it's a huge driving factor for why people use LLMs to touch up their writing.
And the LLM can parse out total garbage in and understand the intent of the writer? I know when I'm vague with an LLM I get junk or inappropriate output.
As an optimist I would say that it could be better at teasing out your intent from you in an interactive way, then producing something along those lines. People aren't ashamed to answer questions from AI.
I actually think that AI is a great use case for writing emails, starting from a draft or list of what you want to say and getting it polished to a professional tone. You need to prompt it correctly, review and iterate so it doesn’t become slop, but very useful.
OTOH, I’d never use it to write emails to friends and family, but then I don’t need to sound professional.
I think you have a good point, but are getting a lot of pushback because of your example. Most AI-hostile people won't use ChatGPT directly but are still happy to use a lot of modern AI features/products such as speech-to-text, recommendation engines, translation services, et cetera.
These new urban systems are simply a way to cram as many people into a small boxes as possible and make citizens culturally flex with their bicycle life and not just seem like a poor peasant. Few give up their personal car because of decades of entrainment. I just think for better or worse, North America is always going to come out with the most selfish (for better or worse) system.
It can be clean tech but we need it to be personal or else we feel like we are declining in standard of living. They don't struggle with these issues in Europe or Asia because Europe and Asia are fundamentally different societies. I don't really see any other way around this dilemma.
blaming the individual instead of the system is a sign of shillbottery
i'd give up my car tomorrow if we had better rapid transit in these parts. And they're working on it, but it takes billions and decades. And I need to drop my kids off at school tomorrow...
OK, what sort of systemic change you propose? Note that bans on anything digital are really hard to enforce without giving law enforcement draconian powers.
Yes, that's the meme. "We should improve society somewhat" doesn't mean the peasant has actionable proposals, only pointing out there's a problem.
My comment was instead highlighting how your analogy to the "car problem" might be right, in that where we see big shifts to reduce the car problem, like in Paris, it comes from systemic changes from a car-centric form to a diverse transit form, rather than an individual choice model.
My go-to these days is to heavily tax the rich, place a staggering tax on the the superrich, introduce meaningful UBI, put strict controls on housing rentals, etc.
Why waste time using ChatGPT to write work email slop when you don't need to work?
I presume the student is using ChatGPT for assignments in order to get the credentials (a degree) needed for a job - while companies off-load their training costs onto young people, who are then encourage to go into debt, resulting in a mild form of debt bondage.
Reduce the need for a job, so the students who go to college are more likely to be those who want the personal education, rather than credentialism.
But hey, I'm just a peasant programmer saying there are flaws, and we should do something about it. Talk to an actual expert, not me.
Those experts (I hear them on podcasts) will also say things like having strong consumer protection laws so people aren't forced to deal with AI (and human!) sludge.
It's much worse than "designed for cars." It's more like "not survivable without a car." It's the same with apps on my phone. I don't want to use them, but sometimes there simply is no alternative in today's world.
We may end up building a world where AI is similarly necessary. The AI companies would certainly like that. But at the moment we still have a choice. The more people exercise their agency now the more likely we are to retain that agency in the future.
The comment explicitly mentioned "cities". Of course rural and suburban areas don't make it practical to be without a car, but many people in cities could use public transportation but handwave it as beneath them or dangerous or unreliable. When in reality it works just fine. Car travel has its own tradeoffs that can be just as easily exaggerated.
I lived in Prague, whose center is medieval and the neighbourhoods around it pre-1900, and even though what you say is true (fewer people drove everywhere), the streets were still saturated to their capacity.
It seemed to me that regardless of the city, many people will drive until the point where traffic jams and parking become a nightmare, and only then consider the alternatives. This point of pain is much lower in old European cities that weren't built as car-centric and much higher in the US, but the pattern seems to repeat itself.
Helsinki made a major push to reduce cars to get to Vision Zero and succeeded in no car fatalities in 2024. It’s now hard to get a taxi and you’re expected to walk / other transport it’s a little bit annoying but worth it
> At one side, people are unhappy about AI, at the other side, who of those same people will stop using ChatGPT to write their work e-mails and assignments for them.
As Newsweek points out*, the people most unhappy about AI are the ones who CAN'T use ChatGPT to write their work e-mails and assignments because they NO LONGER have access to those jobs. There are many of us who believe that the backlash against AI would never have gotten so strong if it hadn't come at the expense of the creators, the engineers, and the unskilled laborers first.
AI agents are the new scabs, and the people haven't been fooled into believing that AI will be an improvement in their lives.
A lot of things can cause dementia. IIRC, men who use Cialis have a lower risk of dementia, which indicates that better blood flow is beneficial as well.
Our skulls are hard for a reason. Brains are sensitive.
Yes, many things can cause dementia. Repeated traumatic brain injuries can cause dementia.
But the leading form of dementia is Alzheimer's. Somewhere in the order of 40% of us are expected to get Alzheimer's before we die. The list of things that have been demonstrated to cause Alzheimer's is much, much shorter.
For the last 40 years, the leading theory about Alzheimer's is that it is caused by the beta-amyloid plaques that are found in the brain after death. This theory has produced exactly zero treatments that meaningfully affect clinical symptoms, despite many drug trial and literally billions in research per year. Seriously, between various sources, we've spent something like a quarter of what it cost to put man on the Moon. (It is hard to make a precise comparison, because a lot of that funding was private.)
This single study represents more progress on effective treatments of Alzheimer's than all of that work combined. The importance of the result should not be dismissed.
I don’t think that there are many things known to have as strong of an effect as HZ vaccines. The current evidence is that the vaccine eliminates like 20% of all cases, suggesting that HZ (aka chickenpox) is directly responsible for at least 20% of dementia cases, possibly much more.
Pushing covid-19 vaccinations onto kids was always controversial. Covid isn't smallpox, people under 30 only get a serious case very rarely, and the vaccine isn't sterilizing anyway.
If we want to use medications responsibly and rationally, we must be careful about the cost/benefit analysis to the intended recipient groups. It makes great sense to vaccinate old people against Covid and teenagers against HPV. The other way round, much less so.
Of course the vendors will push for blanket use, as they make more money, but that is also the problem.
reply