I’m more hopeful that MIDI completion/in-filling models will be easier for musicians to control and use. But right now, the most popular tools are things like Suno, where you barely have any control and it spits out an entire, possibly mediocre song. It’s the same vein as ChatGPT image generation vs. Stable Diffusion, where you can do much more controllable inpaints with the latter.
> Nicotine in tobacco can form carcinogenic tobacco-specific nitrosamines through a nitrosation reaction. This occurs mostly in the curing and processing of tobacco. However, nicotine in the mouth and stomach can react to form N-nitrosonornicotine, a known type 1 carcinogen, suggesting that consumption of non-tobacco forms of nicotine may still play a role in carcinogenesis
The dose in urine is 1-3% of that of cigarette smokers so it is a significant, order of magnitude decrease in risk based on the paper another GP has posted below. In the mouth the levels also seem to be an order of magnitude lower than cigarette smokers (though similar in a majority of cases). Those are relatively acceptable risks for a vice I would think.
I kind of understand where they come from: science vulgarization in pop news has been riddled with misinterpretation or lack of depth which can mislead the general public.
I’m not gonna delete it as it’s just going to make comments like yours confusing for people, but that was poor phrasing from me.
It gave the impression that this specific journalist knows nothing, which is unfair.
I was trying to be funny (always risky online) and intended to be speaking humorously about science journalism in generally. In hindsight, my phrasing doesn’t do that, and actually doesn’t communicate what I was saying very well.
I stand by my criticism of science journalism in general and my request that the article is just posted. But my wording was very rough, ultimately didn’t make the point I intended and yes might frustrate some people. If someone is extremely upset or hurt by my comment then, I think, at some stage that isn’t my fault and the Internet might not be right for that person.
Oof, this comment was really nice up until the end. Accepting responsibility, expressing regret, etc.
> If someone is extremely upset or hurt by my comment then, I think, at some stage that isn’t my fault and the Internet might not be right for that person.
But then you're like "If you're upset, whatever, that's on you" - even though nobody's really suggested someone is "extremely" upset or hurt by your comment.
Also, you can be funny on the Internet - it has nothing to do with that. The real question is whether you can be funny without degrading people.
I’m just saying that I draw the line somewhere with how upset someone is. Like, if someone read my comment and thought it was unfair then I agree with them. If someone read it and was deeply hurt by it - that’s really in their court not mine.
It’s slightly different because apple is a hardware manufacturer primarily that happens to have its own OS, whereas there are many other phone manufacturers, and not all of them even use google’s version of android/linux on them, nor have to in the future. And sure google makes hardware too but they’re small relatively speaking.
I guess what I’m saying is it’s less of a duopoly traditionally speaking because as companies they build primarily different things.
reply