Peehole

If you’re really just a teenage girl hanging out here, until you give proof that you are actually that, people will always wonder wtf you are doing here with all the nerds. And since posting pictures would be a terrible idea for so many reasons, no one will ever know and people will keep speculating or thinking it’s bullshit. And since this is a fringe anonymous communication platform, rightfully so. So idk just keep having fun

I’m sorry but it’s not. They are running a regression model. You don’t need to show me that you can write down the equation but it is common to at least show something like ANOVA or just in general a table that shows your model and the coefficient estimates. It might be buried somewhere because the tables aren’t rendered next to the text but I couldn’t find it.

I‘m not sure why we call this community science if I have to explain why I would like to see the mathematical model that justifies the core result of a paper.

Care to elaborate? Upvotes / downvotes are meaningless but if you have objections to the way I see it I might learn something and I mean that.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41416-025-03327-4

Can we make a link to the study mandatory pls?

Regarding the study, I think it’s plausible in a sense that they have a large, diverse sample and control for the things that you should control for but what I always miss in medical papers is a more sophisticated quantitative part. It might be somewhere where I just didn’t see it because I’m not from the field but I don’t really understand their mathematical model that has led to these findings, nor do I understand how to interpret these findings independently.

I think Claude Code was genuinely useful until like version *.0.76 or something since they bumped to *.1 it has become a shitshow. Don’t know any alternative tho

Thanks a lot, this is what I’ve been wondering. I know that there’s a link and that cannabis can trigger e.g. psychoses especially if there’s a genetic predisposition, but this is extremely tricky data to work with and to draw inferences from.

They do mention the bidirectional nature and I think that’s where it becomes really hard to model. If you would properly try to isolate the cannabis effect you’d need to identify a cohort of individuals similar to those that got diagnosed and that have (self-reportedly) not consumed cannabis as a control group and then compare these two groups to their overarching population and then determine if the mean difference (if there’s any) is statistically significant.

Here you could argue that this is what they’ve already been doing and I may have a flaw in my thinking, but I think there’s just some control variable missing.

Of course if we knew how to describe such population this would be an easy exercise, but since all we know is that the population is teenagers living in the same area, along with some other demographic metadata this is a limitation that I‘m not sure can be overcome so I don’t blame the authors of the study.

I think that the connection is there in some way or another is an interesting finding and probably a good reason to try and stop teenagers from smoking weed. Personally it also helps me against depression but also I‘m not 14 anymore.

It’s not. They disclose the conflict of interest and source of funding part but that doesn’t tell me who the funding sources are and what’s their agenda? I only have this question because I read the article information.

Also this doesn’t tell me anything about journal ranking, I don’t even know if this is a proper journal, let alone if it’s peer reviewed. If you drop a link to the Lancet it’s cool I know it, I’m still not going to abandon my critical thinking but I will give the benefit of the doubt.

It’s not so much that I necessarily think their findings are implausible or anything, it’s just that I want to discuss science in a scientific way in a science community, and those are normal things to ask.

Ah yeah thank you! Im used to stuff like SSRN where you can’t miss the link

Idk what to say, that’s wild

Thank you.

Maybe someone can tell if this is peer reviewed and if this is actually published in a reputable journal and also what’s the agenda of the institutes funding this.

Lot to ask I guess but I have 0 clue about this field and don’t really know how seriously I should take this

But where is the study? Maybe this is my bad but I couldn’t actually find the paper that explains the methodology, nor could I find in which journal this is published and if this got peer reviewed?

This was a fascinating read even though I couldn’t follow a lot of stuff tbh

I did actually work on some crypto prototypes using AI and LLMs do hallucinate wallets. I was curious once because there was some wallet connected to my project so I sent like a fraction of a cent to it to see what would it happen and it got immediately drained so I checked out the wallet and I think someone’s private keys ended up in the training data. Was pretty funny to observe but it’s scary to think that people might actually lose money like that.

Sick, imagine it gets actual crypto, will it be a real wallet? Imagine they’d have money what would they use it for? Ideally, they’d start a company and actually outsource work to humans, making them essentially the bitch of a clanker and the clanker‘s constant u-turns. "You’re right, the client doesn’t need encryption for their auth endpoints. This isn’t just about security — this is about responsible user choice and not overengineering things. Good call out!“

deleted by creator

Now that people are running openclaw I think it’s only a matter of time

I mean I’m equally worried about China and their genocide against e.g. the Uyghurs as I am about the western genocide against e.g. Palestinians or the Russian genocide against e.g. Ukrainians. The problem is with the concept of empire, not any implementation of that concept specifically.

Eh I don’t disagree with you, it’s just the reality for me that I am now expected to work on much more stuff at the same time because of AI, it’s exhausting but at least in my job I have no choice and I try to arrange myself with the situation.

I sure lost a lot of understanding of the details of the codebase but I do read every line of code these LLMs spit out and manually review all PRs for obvious bullshit. I also think code quality got worse despite me doing everything I can to keep it decent.

Yeah you absolutely should put olive oil on top. Also what you can do is blend green chili with a bit of garlic & salt and a lot of olive oil. And then drown the hommos in it.

In the end I can’t stop anyone from doing weird things to their food like adding pesto to hommos or cream to carbonara sauce or making British food in general, but sometimes there’s a reason that people have been doing things in a certain way for a long time

With proper prompting you can let it do a lot of annoying stuff like refactors reasonably well. With a very strict linter you can avoid the most stupid mistakes and shortcuts. If I work on a more complex PR it can take me a couple days to plan it correctly and the actual implementation of the correct plan will take no time at all.

I think for small bug fixes on a maintainable codebase it works, and it works for writing plans and then implementing them. But I honestly don’t know if it’s any faster than just writing the code myself, it‘s just different.