No one knows with certainty why dogs lick you. There are many well-established theories based on understanding of dog behavior.

“I love you.”

“You’re tasty.”

“I’m anxious.”

The historicity is important at other times. But now we need to get people politically engaged with their feet. At this point if we called them Teletubbies and it mobilized people into organized resistance, I’d take it.

Theres an old article of this happening in the USSR in 1979

Right. Because johnny bananas wrote about how s parent of their student gave their kid a comfort banana. And I’m the stupid one. Enjoy eating that onion.

Why do people believe this even happened? When did this happen? Which country did this happen in?

This is rage bait. The users name is “johnny bananas”.

I tend to be skeptical of the reactionary AI is always slop trend. I’m sympathetic to it because it’s a response to the hype machine that knows no prudence. But damn when you say

“Your next move: Build AI foundations. Our work with organisations confirms mounting evidence that isolated, tactical AI projects often don’t deliver measurable value. Tangible returns come from enterprise-scale deployment consistent with company business strategy.”

I read this as marketing. What’s the evidence you’ve been gathering? Why do you believe your projects are applicable to all companies? What happens if we invest and it doesn’t help like you say it will?

This is like saying the solution to your relationship troubles is having a baby. No… No this is not the solution. Make my smaller projects work and show return and then we talk larger commitments.

Fish aren’t silly?
FISH ARE SILLY DILLY!

I get that Dilbert’s tie is suppose to be an intentional phallic symbol, but AI got it all going extra today.

Source

we define “science” as the aggregate consciousness of scientific researchers

This is something I wish I could preach convincingly to everyone. The activity of scientists, a social group, are arguing and trying to convince one another that their interpretation of the data acquired by using their tools and methods is what become a scientific consensus.

Forefronting the method (often a vaguely defined one rooted in a hypo-deductive model from about 150 years ago that most people learned in grade school) removes the relationships between people and other people and people and institutions.

I wish I could find the paper but there’s a wonderful enthographic study on how scientists interact with each other to transform the discourse.

Edit: Found it! Science as Social Knowledge: Values and Objectivity in Scientific Inquiry by Helen E. Longino

There are no evil viruses. Some are just detrimental to us.

Why does this matter?

Over, under, and misuse have resulted in adaptations by bacteria. Which is to say, life evolves. Its too bad, and there is still a role for antibiotics in our world, but we have to trim our use of it.

Course lengths for antibiotics isn’t well studied. From this article:

In fact, the optimal length of treatment in many common infections is not well studied and may be more than a little arbitrary. One infectious diseases doctor has suggested, somewhat satirically, that most of our current rules for antibiotic administration have more to do with the number of days in the week than they do with robust scientific evidence.

We have a growing and, frankly, terrifying issue of antibiotic resistant bacteria from over prescribing and longer than necessary courses.

From the IHRA working definition, “[C]iticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic.”

You could use command palette. Works like a charm. No ads.

Honey dew is delicious when it’s vine ripened and slightly warmed in the sun.

The one response you got was just like, “But there’s just ONE rule.” totally missing your point.

It’s the Earth Kingdom.

Nailed it.