prep is great but i would really rather take a one-time vaccine than be expected to take an expensive pill forever that could mess up my liver

Which one do you suppose the pharmaceutical companies would prefer?

The company making the expensive pill you take forever would prefer the pill. Competitors who don't make those pills would love to develop a vaccine and put that first company out of business.

I’d guess the ones developing the vaccine would rather you take the vaccine

who do you expect to create pharmaceuticals other than pharmaceutical companies? sheesh

I'm sure they will gladly sell us both

it's impossible to block injection 100% when the input and outer instructions are unified together.

SpaceX makes its revenue from renting out GPUs

I think US states aren't allowed to switch unless the feds decide to allow it

US States aren't allowed to have permanent DST, but they can have permanent standard time.

Arizona doesn’t have it

exactly, thank you

he has apparently translated one word according to the only documentation we have. "my untrained amateur friend with no experience in the field has solved a hundreds of years old puzzle. no, trust me!" gets old real quick.

i'm gonna write a blog post now about how my buddy discovered cold fusion and will have a paper out real soon now

/r/classics thinks this is bunk btw https://www.reddit.com/r/classics/s/wwiNTytNfA

this isn't an achievement, it's yet another amateur crank claiming he solved a famous puzzle, without a paper and without any critical review. many people have claimed to decode Linear A before. just because this guy used an LLM doesn't make it more credible

He has a working draft of a manuscript that may form the basis of a scholarly article, it has been shared with experts, and there is an excerpt of the paper in my blog post. I have also seen and read the paper with my own 2 eyes, I can't publish it though, Tom wants to keep that under wraps while it's reviewed by linguistics experts.

> He has a working draft of a manuscript that may form the basis of a scholarly article, it has been shared with experts

So did many of the previous attempted solvers.

One way to assess the validity of prior claims is to see how many words you can translate using their proposed system.

But the entire corpus for Linear A is tiny, you could backfill a "translation" that has no actual similarity with the real language when properly tested against novel examples. How was this tested?

of course we have no way to assess this claim as there is no public software or paper to review

the info provided is completely unverifiable.

The post says so. What do Rutgers and Cambridge say though?

My following searches turn out no announcements by either Rutgers or Cambridge:

"rutgers linguists evaluate deciphering of linear a by tom di mino"

https://www.google.com/search?q=rutgers+linguists+evaluate+d...

https://www.google.com/search?q=cambridge+linguists+evaluate...

who at Rutgers and Cambridge? did he just email some random linguistics profs? why not classics? and did they respond out of genuine interest or just trying to let an enthusiastic amateur down gently?

i am sorry but "crank" is the correct term for the many amateurs who routinely email mathematicians, physicists, and apparently linguists with their special theories without having any academic experience in the field. for every anecdote where it panned out there are thousands of cases where it did not.

Nazi merchandise doesn’t have a corporation using back channels to get Shopify to unpublish products.

vibe coding is only "more efficient" if you ignore the massive energy costs involved