At the very least I would expect a "Did you mean..." message at the top. In fact, it correctly does this for the "Neal" query. The lack of one indicates a failure on google's part to understand the answer it gives.
Yes, people probably don't make this exact query in good faith very often, but it raises significant concerns for other queries where google tries to supply an answer.
> "The typical mask you buy in the drug store is not really effective in keeping out virus, which is small enough to pass through material. It might, however, provide some slight benefit in keep out gross droplets if someone coughs or sneezes on you."
> He added: "I do not recommend that you wear a mask, particularly since you are going to a very low risk location."
> Fauci has previously been criticized for changing his position on masks. Early on in the pandemic, he advised against wearing face coverings, but that advice evolved over time.
To the first point, isn't this still true? Unless I missed something, N-95s/respirators are the only way to protect yourself, wearing the cloth/surgical masks is a way to prevent yourself, who may be asymptomatic, from spreading the disease and NOT to protect yourself from someone who you are in contact with who has it.
To the second point, if I am recalling correctly this was in part due to the fact that we were undergoing as massive supply shortage. I distinctly remember my roommates (healthcare workers) being told to keep their N-95s in a brown paper bag and to reuse it.
To the third point, everyone is a critic and everyone is bound to make mistakes in a rapidly evolving situation. Given the fact that front-line folks had to re-use (Read: already contaminated and unsafe for use) masks given the supply issues, I'm not so sure he was wrong in advising the general public to hold off.
Computer science lecturer interested in transitioning to industry. Very interested in opportunities involving graphs/network analysis, data science, and/or ed tech.
That's so, so easy to happen, specially 10 years ago. If they're not already primed to think a dataset might be fraudulent, a researcher might likely just think they've won the statistical signal lottery.
A quick search turns up numerous results of the first two. I know I've heard the fineapple joke before. Those are also the only two I would consider a pickup line. Is there a reason you consider these results better?
Great question, I feel like GPT3 does a great job with predictable generation, like Family Feud answers. The first two are very predictable and the remaining 10 fall closer to a line that most folks would try out at least as an icebreaker, which is the expected result of a successful pickup line.
Some of the article's examples were too off the mark for folks to attempt.
I believe they are a part of Computer Systems: A Programmer's Perspective by Bryant and O'Hallaron. You can see a list of the labs at http://csapp.cs.cmu.edu/3e/labs.html.
Repeating a concrete example from another comment:
> Take two copies of K_4. Connect them with a single edge. The minimum cut is the single connector edge while your proposed strategy would delete the three edges out of one of the vertices not incident to the connector edge.
Take two copies of K_4. Connect them with a single edge. The minimum cut is the single connector edge while your proposed strategy would delete the three edges out of one of the vertices not incident to the connector edge.
Yes, people probably don't make this exact query in good faith very often, but it raises significant concerns for other queries where google tries to supply an answer.
See for example: https://gizmodo.com/googles-algorithm-is-lying-to-you-about-...