It doesn’t matter if they actually absorb water or not. Just try the mushrooms side by side, washed and unwashed. Decide based on what you prefer.
It doesn’t matter if they actually absorb water or not. Just try the mushrooms side by side, washed and unwashed. Decide based on what you prefer.
I’ve never had a problem with this, raw or cooked. The insides of my washed mushrooms are always dry.
We really need to place more value on publishing negative results, reproductions, or even just raw data when you can’t conclude anything from them. I don’t know how to make that happen yet, but it’ll solve a lot of these problems.
You don’t think a country with 20% of the world population and a culture that heavily emphasizes academics is capable of producing anything of scientific value?
If you provide people with the means to replace lost crypto keys, then you’ve lost the security gained from using them.
You can also check the ingredients. It should have exactly one ingredient, and that’s peanuts. Maybe salt too.
I’d be surprised if being born with a specific face configuration isn’t protected in the same way that race and gender are.
Somehow, we manage to accept organ transplants despite it hurting one healthy person a little to help an unhealthy person a lot. What’s stopping us from treating birth control the same way?
Right, so if that’s the discussion you care about, that’s totally fair. Most researchers I know couldn’t give a rat’s ass what you call it as long as there’s something to call it. I think we’ve all long accepted that no two person will have the same idea of what intelligence means.
You’ll be dismissing the vast majority of experts in the fields. The only people who refuse to call it AI are those who think AI refers to the stuff you see in sci-fi movies. The ones doing the work and who actually know what they’re talking about use AI to mean even the simplest thing like a bunch of if statements that make up a hard-coded decisions tree.
“Insufficient detail. Please ask a specific question.”
This is a very real problem from the answering side. So many people would rather have you guess what they’re trying to ask and then get mad at you when you guess wrong.
You’ll have to explain what you mean by universal healthcare then. Wikipedia says
Universal healthcare does not imply coverage for all cases and for all people
Universal Healthcare doesnt have that problem, it’s what universal means.
This idealized version of universal healthcare isn’t possible because it’ll require more resources than we have as a species. There’s always more that you can do to improve health outcomes. A line had to be drawn somewhere.
I subsist off Doritos and Mountain Dew. Let all the ladies know. I’ll be waiting in my mom’s basement.
then-girlfriend/now-wife’s roommate
Had to do a double take on this.
It is made by scientists. And we don’t know how to make the model determine whether or not it knows something. So far, we only have tools that tell us that something probably wasn’t in the training set (e.g. using variance across models in a mixture of experts setup), but that doesn’t tell us anything about how correct it is.
I’ve heard Elon Musk (or was it Karpathy?) talking about how camera should be sufficient for all scenarios because humans can do it on vision alone, but that’s poor reasoning IMO. Cars are not humans, so there’s no reason to confine them to the same limitations. If we want them to be safer and more capable than human drivers, one way to do that is by providing them with more information.
Yeah, but which side do you chomp first?
Standing on the shoulder of dwarves hiding deep underground
Which is how it should be. The cost is being paid either way. It’s either the consumer that pays, or we all pay for it.