I've also started doing this, and it's surprisingly enjoyable to both do and even to read. The end result is often more readable to me than using a 3rd-party JS visualization library, because I only need to know standard HTML/CSS concepts to understand what's going on. And a side benefit is smaller pages with less bitrot due to being able to skip the dependencies.
Besides growth, Nvidia also has much higher profit margins. In Q1 2024, Apple's margins were 42% gross, 26% net, versus Nvidia's 78% gross, 57% net. May or may not be sustainable, but for now Nvidia's basically printing money.
In practice, wrong findings that aren't due to misconduct and aren't very recent are usually not retracted though. It's just considered part of the history of science that some old papers have proofs or results now known to be false. It is pretty common in mathematics, for example, for people to discover (and publish) errors they found in old proofs, without the journal going back and retracting the old proof. A famous example is Hilbert's (incorrect) sketch of a proof for the continuum hypothesis [1].
I think the flags have more been because of the poor sourcing of the actual death. It seems various people and groups heard that he died and are posting their obituaries and remembrances, but there's no real factual confirmation or details (e.g. one thing that was briefly on the front page here [1] was a link to an unsourced, now-deleted tweet from Momentum UK).
Yes, this article doesn't appear to have any independent sourcing, it just cites the Jacobin one that you link: "de acordo com a revista norte-americana Jacobin" ("according to the North American magazine Jacobin").
The New Statesman also published an obituary that they had to retract.
I found the title of this article amusing although the publication isn't one that I often read: "'Manufacturing Obituaries': Media Falsely Reports Noam Chomsky's Death" https://www.commondreams.org/news/noam-chomsky-not-dead
"Unfit for deployment" or "not intended for deployment" is semi-standard wording for research models that are just raw language models with none of the safety/bias/offensiveness filtering that is usually desired for product applications. For example, if you deploy it as a customer-service chatbot, it might tell your customers to kill themselves, or call them racial slurs.
It doesn't mean that there's anything technically wrong with the language model per se as a model of language, just that there has been no effort made to ensure it's fit to be deployed as-is for any given generative-AI use case, and the model authors would prefer you didn't do that.
> DeepL and Google Translate definitely also make things up
I think what they make up is different, but this is a good point. They have a particularly odd tendency to either do something like autocorrect where it wasn't appropriate (translate a different word that is similar in spelling to the requested word), or to make up false friends, doing something like transliterate + then autocorrect in the target language.
In 2018, if you translated it to Greek with Google Translate, it gave you κουνέλι (kouneli), which is Greek for rabbit. A word that is one letter away from ribbit but not close to a similar meaning. When I tried it just now, it translates it to ραβδί (rabdi), which means stick and is completely unrelated to the correct answer, but I guess starts with similar letters as ribbit?
Google search has a horrible tendency to do the same thing to my search terms. Autocorrect is (usually) great when typing on a touch screen but it's horrible when it decides it knows what I mean better than I do.
Same situation in Greece. Formal documents like identity cards, university diplomas, and even mailboxes, generally put the surname first, while in running text, like a news article, the given name is first. Some formal documents also list the patronymic, in the order: Surname Given Patronymic.
In some situations it is less clear which convention applies. For example most of my older relatives use surname-first for their Facebook account name, which is less common with younger people. I have also seen both orders on business cards. I think most Greeks would not expect foreigners to be familiar with or follow these conventions though.
Retirement savings are in fact excluded from parents' assets for the purposes of FAFSA, at least if they are in some kind of account legally recognized as a retirement account (401k, 403b, IRA, traditional pension, annuity, etc.). Details of what is included and excluded from parental assets: https://studentaid.gov/2324/help/parent-investments
reply