I think the confusion is because you're referring to a common understanding of what AI is but I think the definition of AI is different for different people.
Can you give your definition of AI? Also what is the "generally accepted baseline definition for what crosses the threshold of intelligent behavior"?
Hi, I couldn't figure it out on your site but on the picture where you have your hand under the virtual sun[1], do you feel the warmth of the "sun" on your hand as you'd feel it with the real sun?
No, there is no IR to speak of, however a lot of people tell us they feel warmer when they stand under it - just a psychological effect but interesting to observe
Would you ever consider making a product that emits some level of IR? Or even a very small amount of UV? Would be amazing for the winter months, even if it was just a very small amount.
UL safety cortication and energy regulations make it difficult to add UV and IR, UV because it can easily damage people's eyes and IR because it introduces too much heat which can be a fire or touch/burn risk. Energy regulations also limit how much wattage you can put into lighting, if most of that energy goes into creating IR (like real sunlight) then you won't comply with those regulations. For now it's better to buy a separate space heater to create IR, then you could also use a cheaper energy source like gas.
There are no "best" version of captcha. I've worked on several large scale projects where captcha was floated and then quickly abandoned in favor of other methods like Honeypot or using other methods to weed out bots and other 3rd party agents.
If you have to use captcha the least worst are probably reCaptcha V2 and hCaptcha for accessibility.
By far the most effective way to prevent bots is to charge for an account or service. Facebook, for example, banned billions of bots. At just 1 dollar an account, such a situation would be completely untenable. Not to mention most views are worth fractions of a cent - paying for bots wouldn't be a return on investment, so nobody would do it.
Bots are an inherent problem with free, advertisement-fueled web. If you want to get rid of them, it's trivial, but requires an re-understanding of how we use the web.
I don't think there is any PoW that results in acceptable performance for the user (especially on mobile) while also making the cost for an attacker high enough to deter them.
Even renting the compute on AWS, it only costs $0.01 per minute for the equivalent of a decent desktop computer (c8g.4xlarge). While an attacker will likely either use a botnet, or hardware better suited for solving the PoW than the hardware the user is using.
Though CAPTCHAs don't really work well anymore either, since solving services are quite cheap. Recaptcha is nowadays primarily based on other factors, like IP reputation, susceptibility to google tracking, and behavioral scoring.
Most people engage with web content on relatively low powered machines. If you tune them to be tolerable on a 4 year old mid-range android device, there isn't much cost incurred on a threadripper.
I'd never heard of them before getting them while using Brave search sometimes, I'm not sure I entirely understand how they work and differentiate between a bot and human.
They don't differentiate. They just make it too expensive to be worth paying for the resources required to carry out a spam attack at any meaningful scale.
Mimi hearing test app[1] works for that as it gives you an audiogram that you can import in Settings -> Accessibility -> Audio & Visual -> Headphone Accommodations -> Audiogram
I just downloaded and tried it for iPhone. Fwiw once you do the hearing test, on the app homepage you can sync to Apple Health and it sends over the audiogram.
Not the GP but I use these[1] and they work great for workouts. They look pretty much the same on various amazon stores, temu, aliexpress, etc so I'd just get whatever is cheapest if I lose mine. I've also tried over ear hooks for the AirPods Pro but I wear glasses and it's an awkward fit.
> I had disc herniation and my mother, who is a retired doctor, said to just do a lot of fast walking.
Anecdotally slow walking makes my sciatica worse and fast walking alleviates any pain in minutes.
Did your mother, or your research, point to any reasons why fast walking in particular?
My working theory for my body in particular is that I'm more on my toes with less heel impact but I couldn't find anything other than anecdotes here. Also light skipping on my toes helps in a similar matter in a pinch.
My explanation/understanding is that fast walking with larger strides creates rotational movement around the spine axis and that stimulates the tissue. With slow walking, one could do that with no body rotation and only the legs move.
I'll experiment with it and try to isolate it. The description reminds me of twisting but twisting is often associated with more pain. However there are some videos that suggest similar movements relieve symptoms. This one[1] seems quite popular.
> In FTL you experience the atmosphere of running a spaceship trying to save the galaxy. It's a dangerous mission, with every encounter presenting a unique challenge with multiple solutions.
> What will you do if a heavy missile barrage shuts down your shields?
> - Reroute all power to the engines in an attempt to escape?
> - Power up additional weapons to blow your enemy out of the sky?
> - Or take the fight to them with a boarding party?
Warning, FTL can be addictive. It has a heavy luck dependence that makes you want to try again.
That said, the game mechanics are really well done and give you options for creative problem solving. For example your pilot increases the chance to evade missiles. Unless he is busy extinguishing a fire in another room. So instead you can open a door to space and power down your own oxygen supply. And use that power to charge a second weapon.
If that's your only showstopper you can change that in settings. Look up Raise to Wake[1] and Notifications[2] in Settings.
I'm usually using Theatre Mode which keeps the screen off until an alarm or I wake it up and have pretty much all notifications off. I still get heavy use of the watch itself for timers, reminders, calendar, tracking workouts and health stats and whatnot so I'm very happy with it.
[1] - https://support.apple.com/en-gb/guide/watch/apd748b87e2a/wat...
The first mention of this indeed does not specify that both are odorless but the second sentence does:
> Before playing the game, the participants sniffed either female tears or a saline solution – both are odorless – but were not told what they were sniffing.
If they think it's being absorbed through the lungs then they should plug the subjects noses and have them inhale instead of sniffing it. But that's a far fetched assumption. Assuming the effect is real at all, it's almost certainly chemical detection through the nose. That's odor. That's why they had the subjects sniff it, because they obviously suspect that it's based on odor.
If, let’s say for sake of argument, this study’s hypothesis is that the effect is caused by pheromones, then by definition it’s odorless.
In fact, one of the inherent challenges of trying to study this effect between humans is that the participants need to be clean and odorless, to ensure you’re actually measuring the effects of pheromones and not, say, odor. This review talks about this challenge[0].
You nose detects it and your brain reacts to it; it's odor. Just because you don't consciously perceive it doesn't mean it isn't odor. If it isn't odor then there isn't any other good word for it.
>Assuming the effect is real at all, it's almost certainly chemical detection through the nose. That's odor.
No, odor is a perceived smell. UV and IR both interact with the eye without being visible, so there's no good reason to insist that it's impossible for chemicals with no smell to interact with the nose.
When chemicals float through the air into your nose or mouth and get detected by your brain, that's odor. Conscious perception or unconscious emotional reaction makes no difference, both are odor. If there are no chemicals being emitted or they have no reaction to your nose and your nose doesn't change the signals it's sending to your brain, then you can fairly say it has no odor.
To say that odors aren't odors unless they are consciously perceived is like saying UV isn't light because you don't consciously perceive it. Except it's the same physical phenomena, electromagnetic radiation or chemicals floating through the air, your sensory organs are detecting it (mostly being destroyed by it in the case of UV, but probably not in the case of tear odor...) and your brain is reacting to it even though you don't consciously realize it.
>To say that odors aren't odors unless they are consciously perceived is like saying UV isn't light because you don't consciously perceive it
No, I'm saying that EM doesn't produce colors unless it's visible light. What you're saying is that not only are cold, pressure, and pain flavors, so are any additional effects on satiety or insulin response or whatever triggered by any interaction with receptors on the tongue.
That's a different definition of odor than commonly accepted. If you can't consciously perceive it, it's not an odor. Just like you can't see the TV remote shine a bright infrared light. We don't call TV remotes flashlights, because we can't perceive infrared. If we can't consciously perceive a smell, it's described as odorless.
If tears are being detected by the brain, it's through chemicals from the tears traveling through the air and landing on sensors in your nose (or mouth); that is odor. If there is some mechanism other than odor by which humans might distinguish tears them from saline solution after sniffing them, please tell me.
Odors also being detected with your tongue is irrelevant trivia which doesn't alter my conclusion. Sound can be heard through your chest but that's irrelevant trivia when somebody says "if there's no air to transmit pressure waves to your ears then there's no sound." Sound is transmitted through pressure waves in the air, and odors are transmitted through chemicals in the air. If you're hearing them with your ears or chest or smelling them with your nose or mouth makes no difference, the fact that any detection is evidently taking place shows that there is sound or odor involved. Furthermore, the researchers obviously suspect that the mechanism of detection is odor because they asked their subjects to sniff it. You don't ask subjects to sniff a thing unless you suspect odor of being involved. If researchers were studying the perception of magnetic fields, they wouldn't ask people to sniff the fields.
Again, if there is any other plausible mechanism for detection, then tell me. Otherwise, stop wasting my time.
Can you give your definition of AI? Also what is the "generally accepted baseline definition for what crosses the threshold of intelligent behavior"?