Agreed, seems like a no-brainer. Typically this stuff is handled at an institutional level, with bad professors losing/ failing to achieve tenure. But some results have much bigger implications than just "Uh oh, I cited that paper and it was a bad one." Often, entire clinical pipelines are developed off of bad research, which wastes millions of dollars.

See also, the recent scandals in Alzheimer's research. https://www.science.org/content/article/potential-fabrication-research-images-threatens-key-theory-alzheimers-disease

Good riddance, Tom Bombadil. I don't care how merry a fellow he was, those were my least favorite chapters of Fellowship.

Well if you liked PoE I doubt you'll like D4. It's a much simpler game. Sadly my only advice is to try GD and Last Epoch again. I've got hundreds of hours in the former and I just got 10 hours into the latter.

Last Epoch feels like a more approachable PoE. I thoroughly enjoy how the skills interplay with one another, but I still prefer the itemization in Grim Dawn.

The only reason I'm not playing GD currently is because I have too many QoL mods installed so my cloud saving doesn't work, but I can cloud save for Last Epoch for my steam deck lmao.

They raised my rent 20% over two years and priced me out of two apartments. Glad to see progress.

It's a bunch of neurons that speak to a computer with a microelectrode array. So they "speak to" the neurons with electric impulses, and then "listen to" what they have to say. The computer it's connected to uses binary, but the neurons are somewhere in between. Yes, the change in electrical potential is analog, but neurons are typically in their "on" state, recovering from their "on" state, or just chilling out.

The brain is incredible because of the network of connections between neurons that store information. It'll be interesting to see if a small scale system like this can be used for anything larger scale.

Believe it or not, I studied this in school. There's some niche applications for alternative computers like this. My favorite is the way you can use DNA to solve the traveling salesman problem (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA_computing?wprov=sfla1)

There have been other "bioprocessors" before this one, some of which have used neurons for simple image detection, e.g https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/1396377?casa_token=-gOCNaYaKZIAAAAA:Z0pSQkyDBjv6ITghDSt5YnbvrkA88fAfQV_ISknUF_5XURVI5N995YNaTVLUtacS7cTsOs7o. But this seems to be the first commercial application. Yes, it'll use less energy, but the applications will probably be equally as niche. Artificial neural networks can do most of the important parts (like "learn" and "rememeber") and are less finicky to work with.

We've got some really good theories, though. Neurons make new connections and prune them over time. We know about two types of ion channels within the synapse - AMPA and NMDA. AMPA channels open within the post-synapse neuron when glutamate is released by the pre-synapse neuron. And the AMPA receptor allows sodium ions into the dell, causing it to activate.

If the post-synapse cell fires for a long enough time, i.e. recieves strong enough input from another cells/enough AMPA receptors open, the NMDA receptor opens and calcium enters the cell. Typically an ion of magnesium keeps it closed. Once opened, it triggers a series of cellular mechanisms that cause the connection between the neurons to get stronger.

This is how Donald Hebb's theory of learning works. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebbian_theory?wprov=sfla1

Cells that fire together, wire together.

Actually, neuron-based machine learning models can handle this. The connections between the fake neurons can be modeled as a "strength", or the probability that activating neuron A leads to activation of neuron B. Advanced learning models just change the strength of these connections. If the probability is zero, that's a "lost" connection.

Those models don't have physical connections between neurons, but mathematical/programmed connections. Those are easy to change.

Heck, we barely know how neurons work. Sure, we've got the important stuff down like action potentials and ion channels, but there's all sorts of stuff we don't fully understand yet. For example, we know the huntingtin protein is critical to neuron growth (maybe for axons?), and we know if the gene has too many mutations it causes Huntington's disease. But we don't know why huntingtin is essential, or how it actually effects neuron growth. We just know that cells die without it, or when it is misformed.

Now, take that uncertainty and multiply it by the sheer number of genes and proteins we haven't fully figured out and baby, you've got a stew going.

siRNA and miRNA: Are we a joke to you?

I'm 75% sure bone meal doesn't work on sugar cane. Scaling up is the only option.

So a republican in NORTH DAKOTA tweeted that OHIO should ignore the election? Correct me if I'm wrong, but that doesn't seem like the concerted push to overturn the election that I expected when reading that headline.