It’s certainly not as bad as the problems generative AI tend to have, but it’s still difficult to avoid strange and/or subtle biases.
Very promising technology, but likely to be good at diagnosing problems in Californian students and very hit-and-miss with demographics which don’t tend to sign up for studies in silicon valley
I think the trick is to make an effort to cover as many possibilities as can be dealt with by a reasonable effort (definition of “reasonable” varies significantly by context) when setting up something which you expect the general public to interact with. Not so much assuming that any given person has some disability you can’t see, but that any large group of people will have at least a few.
Interactions with a specific person are another matter entirely, as you point out. There, I think the best you can do is roll with it if someone tells you that they’re unable to do something without subjecting them to interrogation or scepticism
Sure, but there are far more things which will kill the entire person at the same dose they’ll kill the cancer than things which can be carefully controlled by choosing the right dose.
These studies which claim to kill cancer in a petri dish usually turn out to be the former, because not killing the host is the difficult part
X^0 and 0! aren’t actually special cases though, you can reach them logically from things which are obvious.
For X^0: you can get from X^(n) to X^(n-1) by dividing by X. That works for all n, so we can say for example that 2³ is 2⁴/2, which is 16/2 which is 8. Similarly, 2¹/2 is 2⁰, but it’s also obviously 1.
The argument for 0! is basically the same. 3! is 1x2x3, and to go to 2! you divide it by 3. You can go from 1! to 0! by dividing 1 by 1.
In both cases the only thing which is special about 1 is that any number divided by itself is 1, just like any number subtracted from itself is 0
It’s a very capitalist way of thinking about the problem, but what “negative prices” actually means in this case is that the grid is over-energised. That’s a genuine engineering issue which would take considerable effort to deal with without exploding transformers or setting fire to power stations
No, it’s not. In physics, we call the entire spectrum “light”, because it’s all fundamentally the same thing.
We can talk about “visible light”, but that’s a subset of light in general. Microwaves, radio waves, x-rays, gamma radiation, and any other section of the spectrum you can think of are all light