Novelty doesn't mean fun, it could have been a joke because the work of scientific research is literally finding novelty, that which is new, pushing boundaries of knowledge, etc.
They mean it went down as in stopped working, had some outage; so you've tried to use it as a token revocation service, but it doesn't work (or not as quickly as you expect).
> I just don't see the point in keeping it around.
So 'you do you' and continue not drinking, no need to preach your life choices. I'm also 'millenial' , I enjoy many alcoholic drinks both socially and because they go with my meal or simply are something not hot/dairy/sweet and other than water.
> [Millennials] saw our parents and aunts and uncles and grandparents destroy their lives because of alcoholism, we lost friends and family because of being victims of drunk drivers, we saw people die of complications of a lifetime of drinking.
Why do you think alcoholism - which is certain distinct from drinking - was new with the generation above 'millenials'?
Wales/Welsh doesn’t jive under the conditions set. Perhaps you missed "non-trivial percentage"? Outer Hebrides is a part of the UK where ~50% of its residents speak Scottish, never mind England and its English dominance, so clearly ~30% is still considered within trivial range. Otherwise "the one part" doesn't work; seeing many parts of the UK fit the bill.
My experience with Gemini (3 Flash) has been pretty funny, not awful (but worse than Kimi K2 or GPT 5.2 Mini), but it's just so much worse at (or rather hyper focused on) following my custom instructions, I keep getting responses like:
The idiomatic "British" way of doing this ...
Alternatively, for an Imperial-style approach, ...
As a professional software engineer you really should ...
in response to programming/Linux/etc. questions!
(Because I just have a short blurb about my educational background, career, and geography in there, which with every other model I've tried works great to ensure British spelling, UK information, metric units, and cut the cruft because I know how to mkdir etc.)
It's given me a good laugh a few times, but just about getting old now.
> It was retrospective-only, i.e. a case series on women who were known to have breast cancer, so there were zero false negatives and zero true negatives, because all patients in the study truly had cancer.
Well yes, that's the denominator for determining selectivity, which is what the headline claim is about.
Also, they need to set up their next paper:
> However, the retrospective, cancer-only design limits generalizability, highlighting the need for prospective multicenter screening trials for validation.
reply