There is no change in the HPV recommendation.

You are not correct according to Reuters. "The new schedule also recommends U.S. children receive a single dose of human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine, rather than a two-dose course. Recent studies have concluded that a single dose is not inferior to the longer course and noted the World Health Organization also backs a single dose schedule." https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/...

This clarification is missing from many others sources (such as the AP one I saw from a local news source): https://www.wral.com/news/ap/9b8df-us-drops-the-number-of-va... .

What you are describing is a somewhat routine adjustment and if it's non-inferior... sure. But it sure reads differently in different sources...

Interesting. In context that is not the claim what I am contradicting in the comment chain, despite that it is the literal reading of what I said.

The HPV single dose recommendation was probably coming regardless of who was in office.

I was literally contributing to Gentoo Linux at age 13. Before, my dad started me on Slackware.

edit: downvoted. Some of you all simply have no belief in or respect for the intelligence of children.

I had my first computer when I was 7. It was a 286 from way back in the day. I learned to navigate around a command prompt and deface some of the IBM software my dad brought home. If was fun to get into things, reconfigure things for games, and just solve problems that came up. None of this was super complicated. I mostly taught myself, but my dad spent the time to get me started and help to figure it out.

I didn't start programming until age 28, because my dad couldn't program and I didn't how to get started on my own. But, had he gotten me started on programming too I would have been programming from the command line as a preteen. I knew other preteens who were doing so.

That is why the comments here are so puzzling. Supposedly this a community of mostly software people. I take it most of these people commenting here lack the focus to figure any of this out themselves, much less teach a child to do it. There is even a comment in here from somebody not knowing what to teach a child and then being completely mystified about it once its pointed out.

My wife is a special education teacher. The common reality she sees (the normal parent) just plants a phone their kid's hands and ignores them all day. To most people that is a technology education, the hands off approach. I really get the feeling that is what most people are looking for something to throw at a child and then wash their hands of it, and the comments here further reinforce this assumption.

Didn't downvote you, I remember my first steps too.

But we weren't the overwhelmed gen alpha consumers. Average teen-and-under currently is far less technically inclined (including analytic skills) than a teen of the 90's or 90's had to be.

When a child touches a computer for the first time, he does not know how it works, regardless from which generation he is. But childredn learn a lot in two years.

They have.

This isn't true. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isoperimetric_inequality

I'm not sure what point you are making. This is language too.

No, you are not hallucinating: https://web.archive.org/web/20250520152757/https://news.ycom...

The present title is more friendly to VCs and the tech industry, shocking no one.

This is basically all work in the physics-informed ML literature. (As another commenter points out and links to, more and more people have been increasingly frustrated with the hype of this subcommunity).

What is more amazing is that they have conned their way into the funding agency priorities and have broadly affected hiring at universities.

Is it? I thought the "neural differential equations" stuff sounded cool, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neural_differential_equation

Don't know if it's been used for anything practical yet but modeling dynamical systems which you only partially know by making use of data sounds useful.

They actually mention the intercept and link to their article. That's more than 9\d% of publications usually do, so I believe they deserve nothing but praise.

The article is also extremely detailed and includes lots of original material. I stopped counting at around two dozen different people the reporters called for this article.

First reporting a story doesn't create any moral or legal ownership of the facts. Otherwise, it'd be impossible for any but the largest publications to survive. And it's even more asinine to complain about a publication putting in the effort to go further and deeper as they do in this case.

You have it completely backwards. NY Times is notorious in journalism for forgetting to mention others' articles or putting them towards the very end of the article.

Extremely so.

I also hear emerging possibilities for machine learning techniques in this dynamic space.

In my humble opinion, generally speaking, lay persons (and even specialists who have not done a proper evaluation) should avoid psychiatric diagnoses of individuals they casually know, as the implications of such a ``diagnosis'' can cause significant distress.

I mean, it's just idle speculation from a semi anonymous internet pundit, so I don't think it should cause significant distress. The article itself is much more likely to have an impact on its subject.

Besides, IMHO, we'd all be better off if more people were more informed about, and attuned to the symptoms of, narcissistic personality disorder and sociopathy. Narcissists thrive by blending into society as if they were normally functioning humans, being given the benefit of the doubt, so the only way to protect yourself or others is to be on alert at all times, regardless of your clinical degrees.