I tried this for "GPU architecture" and "DRAM technology".
The hallucination rate for cited wikipedia links was quite high.
I think the reliability of the facts weren't good enough either.
I think this is more of a function of the learning material's domain(computer hardware stuff) not being as good as say math or programming.
Mewing is something intended to address this, but evidence isn't there. Everyone wants a non-invasive solution rather than jaw expanders, braces, retainers etc.. so depending on where your bias, you might be against "Big-Ortho" and try this, or you could invest in proven orthodontics.
Dr Mew doesn't claim that orthodontics don't work, he points out they are expensive and lucrative, and he claims that if we maintain a "jaw healthy" diet from childhood, orthodontic problems will be much less prevalent in the population (this is a related but independent claim from the "mewing" regimen) He says that the evidence is found by comparing modern jaws/bites with historical skulls which show there has been a dramatic "20th century" emergence of orthodontic problems which would indicate a developmental issue rather than a genetic one.
I don't know if he is correct or not, but it's a claim that can be independently measured/verified. Instead of using and publishing such sound science, the orthodontia community is using "cancellation" against him which certainly matches the lucrative aspect, though doesn't provide direct evidence.
you sound angry, science is best conducted from a neutral POV
I've listened to his evidence, repeated it clearly here for you, and am aware of no counterevidence.
there is nothing wrong with calling his license revocation over this precise topic "cancellation"; cancellation is a more precise term than "full of shit" which could refer to constipation.
You don't seem curious to learn, the hallmark of HN's ethos.
We assimilate into ourselves different forms of structure from each, whether biological or semiotic. Each structure, biomolecules or language, equip us to model and navigate our environment, and persist a bit longer.
Life thrives when its cellular membranes (and bodily boundaries to an extent) are awash in structural microdiversity of friendly chemicals (aka nutrients). More access to structural microdiversity means more ability to navigate complex environments, more ability to choose from the surrounding otherness and decide what gets to cross inside your boundary and become tomorrow's you, tomorrows self.
Minds thrive similarly when immersed in diversity of thought and experience. (See Alex Pentland's Social Physics book) These things aren't as different as they might seem, if you cross your eyes and look at it abstractly like a universe might.
The universe doesn't really quibble between the information that my body "knows" through its structure, and the information my mind "knows" through language. Everything is made of information, and the structures of information that best prepare us for futures will persist :)
Do we? As examined in The Little Prince, people can get nutritions from pills and powders, factually humanity has made a culture out of food, much more than just getting nutritious
I read to be moved by a story, to feel with the characters, to get a sense of a different country or time or culture, to get a sense of possible futures, a sense of what it might mean to live another life, be bound by different constraints and experiences than my own, to experience another mind viewing the same world or imagining a totally different one, seldom to retain knowledge.
Why is it necessary? Could a spider solve ARC-AGI, or could a pigeon, or a cat? And if an animal doesn't need to solve ARC-AGI to be intelligent, then why does an AGI?
And the Sun just somehow emerged from a cloud of hydrogen gas.
The obvious flaw in this line of thinking (as related to AGI) is that we/humans can create/engineer the same or similar without any real understanding of the underlying mechanisms involved.
