You are the third person to mention that the cohort is "dieters who regain weight".
Reading the article and its referenced study, I thought the cohort was "all who were included in the non-placebo group of the RCT" and that the average was taken over all such subjects.
I've tried, can't find any evidence to the contrary. I am wrong and missing some key claim in the study? I would appreciate if you could support your claim.
> Weight regain data are expressed as weight change from baseline (pre-intervention) or difference in weight change from baseline between intervention and control for randomised controlled trials. When analysing and presenting data from all studies, we used weight change from single arm trials, observational studies, and the intervention groups from randomised controlled trials. When analysing data from randomised controlled trials only, we calculated the difference in weight change between the intervention and control groups at the end of the intervention and at each available time point after the end of the intervention. When studies had multiple intervention arms, we treated each arm as a separate arm and divided the number in the comparator by the number of intervention arms to avoid duplicative counting.19
Where do you see that they are comparing "people who succeeded" in the study?
I'm not the best at reading medical studies, but it seems to me like they are taking averages over all subjects in the randomized controlled trials, not just "successful" subjects.
You can't regain weight without having lost it first.
A "fair" comparison would be to compare weight gain of people who lost weight naturally, with Ozempic users who _would have_ lost weight naturally, but it's not really possible to know which Ozempic users fall into that category.
The meta-analysis that is being referenced in the paper included only randomized controlled trials for body-weight management programs. I don't see why you think the weight loss/regain being compared is excluding those who weren't successful rather than averaged over all participants.
I read the study to the best of my abilities, and I see nothing that would support your claim.
> I would state there is one other group that has any academic rigour, and is actually making significant and important progress.
I agree there's a lot of poorly written papers and unrigorous research.
I'm at the beginning of my PhD, so I still don't quite have every group vetted yet. Could you share your area, and what groups to follow (yours and the other good one)?
No, Fortnite is/was directly made by Epic Games and is their most well known product/service.
Better analogies would be Azure as "I have to use Windows" or AWS as "I have to use the Amazon store", which sound a lot less ridiculous than your analogies.
It's the only model provider that has offered a decent deal to students: a full year of google ai pro.
Granted, this doesn't give api access, only what google calls their "consumer ai products", but it makes a huge difference when chatgpt only allows a handful of document uploads and deep research queries per day.
Hallucination rate is hallucination/(hallucination+partial+ignored), while omniscience is correct-hallucination.
One hypothesis is that gemini 3 flash refuses to answer when unsuure less often than other models, but when sure is also more likely to be correct. This is consistent with it having the best accuracy score.
The opposite is also true, the tech world views itself as more sacred that any other part of humanity.
You say it's obvious that the existence of AI is valuable to offset a few artists' jobs, but it is far from obvious. The benefits of AI are still unproven (a more hallucinatory google? a tool to help programmers make architectural errors faster? a way to make ads easier to create and sloppier?). The discussion as to whether AI is valuable is common on hackernews even, so I really don't buy the "it's obvious" claim. Furthermore, the idea that it is only offsetting a few artists' jobs is also unproven: the future is uncertain, it may devastate entire industries.
I'm having a hard time understanding this article.
First of all, a quantum annealer is not a universal quantum computer, just to elucidate the title.
Then, it seems like they are comparing a simulation of p-computers to a physical realization of a quantum annealer (likely D-wave, but not named outright for some reason).
If this is true, it doesn't seem like a very relevant comparison, because D-wave systems actually exist, while their p-computer sounds like it is just a design.
But I may have misunderstood, because at times they make it sound like the p-computer actually exists.
Also, they talk about how p-computers can be scaled up with TSMC semiconductor technology. From what I know, this is also true for semiconductor-based (universal) quantum computers.
University press releases should not be posted on HN. a press release is just a published paper + PR spin. If the PR spin were true, it would be in the paper. Just link to the paper.
Personally, I'm downvoting the comment because it is literally just restating the parent comment, but more generically. It does not contribute to the conversation.
And I'm downvoting you because you are breaking the site guidelines:
> Please don't comment about the voting on comments. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading.
Reading the article and its referenced study, I thought the cohort was "all who were included in the non-placebo group of the RCT" and that the average was taken over all such subjects.
I've tried, can't find any evidence to the contrary. I am wrong and missing some key claim in the study? I would appreciate if you could support your claim.
reply