sushimi

i agree it's not done and dusted.

But it's less pseudoscience as the "GEET reactor" which seemingly has some similar principles operating in it. However, that was by a few people who didn't have the physics insight/skills to properly analyze what they'd sometimes seen. This "thunderstorm generator" has some proper engineers in various places working at it.

i googled geet vs thunderstorm and actually came across this post. Not really reassuring :/

But converting isn't the same as what you're suggesting

It says the frontier models weren't changed though.. Do you think this introduction ending is incorrect?

Together, our findings demonstrate that frontier models now possess capabili ties for basic in-context scheming, making the potential of AI agents to engage in scheming behavior a concrete rather than theoretical concern.

Too bad that in v0.19.6 and 0.19.7 the thumbnails for many new posts will be blank

[Bug]: Images not being rendered properly after 0.19.6 upgrade #5196

i think v1.0 is there because "Ondsel" is stopping and donated things to FreeCad

https://ondsel.com/blog/goodbye/#why-ondsel-is-closing-down

(and they emailed a lot of admins asking them to ban me!)

wow..

i wonder if they recognize this behaviour, caught after the USA election results came out (viewers discretion adviced) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JxZix3EL1Ms&list=PL2DkrnovXSRNHHp1I6KLwsDCHVNZ-lEbl&index=1

i agree on being charitable. That's the only mindset which overcomes the downward spiral of society giving up on society.

What is "ND expressions"? (im not being funny or something)

Must be because of what i posted.

instead of the article being scrutenized (and educating people on how to detect pseudoscience) the post got removed.

At least i got a nice reply showing what was someone's reason for doubting the scientific process of that publisher.. before it got moderated.

Maybe it's possible to use a flags of some sort, to indicate that, even though it's a scientific publication and was peer reviewed, that this Lemmy community thinks it's a bad piece. (but not by up/downvote as a downvote means it goes to the end of the pile, and the education effect is lost)

Like, i want to put this article under your attention, so that i get an idea of what others think about it https://bmjpublichealth.bmj.com/content/2/1/e000282 But i'm afraid to post it, because of the possible backlash(i.e. moderation and maybe banning?)

Thanks. yes i realized the last one, and know of his work.

Looking at the "method", it doesn't look like rocket-science. I'd like to know, is the publication itself a fraud or not?

Thanks for the tip.

The internet page says "Potential predatory scholarly open-access journals"

So i hope at least a few read the paper and assess their method

For those who want a summary in less technical terms: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eEgjuB-0bw8