Aronud 2004 they very likely had something along these lines already in place, probably just running it on a small subset suggested by clever heuristics.

Of course when you start taking the browser apart you can heavily optimize such process.

At some point you could even get so frustrated with existing APIs..

Some of these questions are like "did you stop murdering kittens in you basement yes/no" but still results are very interesting.

well, I wasn't expecting half of the models to say yes to death penalty, so I would say even the dumb questions are interesting.

I also don't know. Additional point to consider: vast majority of doctors have no clue about Bayes theorem.

well, to the credit of Bayes, dementia is likely a safe choice (depending on age/etc.) but dementia is largely a diagnosis of exclusion and most doctors, besides being unfamiliar with Bayes, are also just plain lazy and/or dumb and shouldn't immediately jump to the most likely explanation when it's one with the worst prognosis and fewest treatments...

I work in biomed. Every textbook on epidemiology or medical statistics that I've picked up has had a section on Bayes, so I'm not inclined to believe this.

Here is research about doctors interpreting test results. It seems to favor GP's view that many doctors struggle to weigh test specificity and sensitivity vs disease base rate.

https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/bmjopen/5/7/e008155.full.pdf

> The patients could accurately indicate whether an object was present in the left visual field and pinpoint its location, even when they responded with the right hand or verbally. This despite the fact that their cerebral hemispheres can hardly communicate with each other and do so at perhaps 1 bit per second

1 bit per second and we are passing complex information about location in 3d space?

Yeah, that sounds very unlikely. The full paper dismisses the possibility:

> Another possible explanation to consider is that the current indings were caused by cross-cueing (one hemisphere informing the other hemisphere with behavioural tricks, such as touching the left hand with the right hand). We deem this explanation implausible for four reasons. First, cross-cueing is thought to only allow the transfer of one bit of information (Baynes et al., 1995). Yet, both patients could localize stimuli throughout the entire visual field irrespective of response mode (Experiments 1 and 5), and localizing a stimulus requires more than one bit of information. Second, [...]

I get the impression that the authors of the paper have some kind of woo (nonmaterialist) view of consciousness. But they also mention this possiblity, which seems more plausible to me:

> Finally, a possibility is that we observed the current results because we tested these patients well after their surgical removal of the corpus callosum (Patient DDC and Patient DDV were operated on at ages 19 and 22 years, and were tested 10–16 and 17–23 years after the operation, respectively). This would raise the interesting possibility that the original split brain phenomenon is transient, and that patients somehow develop mechanisms or even structural connections to re-integrate information across the hemispheres, particularly when operated at early adulthood.

> I get the impression that the authors of the paper have some kind of woo (nonmaterialist) view of consciousness.

Indeed:

"Our findings, however, reveal that although the two hemispheres are completely insulated from each other, the brain as a whole is still able to produce only one conscious agent."

Which is materially impossible, given the premise.

> although the two hemispheres are completely insulated from each other

How confident are we in this? Both hemispheres talk to singular organs, for instance.

At this point they start to demand it, whether that's setting up the product or registration needed for warranty protection. But you obviously can still cut them off on router.

Soon though they won't ask, LTE-M / NB-IoT, both chips and plans are becoming very cheap and unless you are living in a faraday cage it will take control away from the user completely.

Boots theory yes, but there also seem to be a paradox of reliability of cheap things.

Manufacturers which are aiming at being dirt cheap and selling lots of products, have low margins and simply cannot afford too many replacements / warranty repairs. High margin products don't care, they could make you three in that price and still be ok.

On multiple devices when doing system update on ios 26, pin entry displays full keyboard instead of standard pin input. It's been like that for like 5 versions (of iOS 26) already.

It's fascinating to me because that's the single thing which every user goes through. It's the main branch and not some obscure some edge case. How do you do testing that you miss that?

You can also use an alphanumeric passcode, in which case you need the full keyboard. Maybe they just unified this, so that it always displays the keyboard instead of switching between keyboard and PIN input?

I mean it should be unified, the pin entry should look the same in every place, this has security implications also. It doesn't.

I think very few manufacturers are optimizing for that. The move to integrated batteries for most portable electronics happened when the price of the battery plus charging ICs became lower than putting in a battery holder. Doing battery holder is currently simply more expensive, design is more complex putting it together is more complex. The cost are not intuitive, you can get 10+ microcontrollers for a price of a single physical on-off switch.

Just keep your cameras on separate vlan and access through eg. wireguard. Any company can have the best intentions but gov can just come to them, tell them to implement whatever is needed - even if that means lying to their users - and have access to everything. Probably even with plausible deniability for all parties involved, but not sure anyone even still cares about that.

Mikrotik has quite a few, I've been happily using CRS306 and CRS312 for some years now.