HF is routinely used in analytical labs; it's standard to microwave HF solutions for ICP digestions. It's not even the most hazardous reagent in my lab right now.

Now, perhaps this chemist meant that no chemist in their right mind would physically touch HF--in that case, I agree completely!

AFAIK they're talking about anhydrous HF gas, not solutions of it. That sounds substantially less fun to work with. It's used to clean CVD chambers.

Oh fair enough, that is a nightmare.

The proletariat, of course.

It's limited to domesticized animals.

tons of domesticated deer though? What about Bison.

Had never heard of domesticated deer, interesting. I guess there must be no milk production using them.

I dunno, I'm a dyed-in-the-wool, certified AI hater, and even I don't really care if this is AI or not. The cheeses I am aware of match their descriptions well, and if AI let some guy make this in like fifteen minutes so I can read this silly, fun site on the toilet at work, that's fine to me.

AI definitely could be used for something worse than categorizing cheese, I just recognize that the moment I see a page is AI-generated, my motivation to consume the content of the page drops.

> my motivation to consume the content of the page drops.

I suspect this is a feature backed by an innate brain process related to down-weighting the storage potential of information from untrustworthy people, as a type of resistance to the human brain equivalent of a "poison" attack. For example, some guy that lied to you in the past walks up. Brain releases chemical that reduces "excitement", brain doesn't store said BS as readily.

That's totally fair, I guess my defenses aren't that high because most of what I view online comes from HN or a few small reddit communities, so I'm not exposed to much slop.

Aren’t you concerned with consuming made up information? There has to be a million fun silly sites you haven’t read that a real person put real research and real effort into. LLMs just can’t do stuff like this accurately right now.

Yes, I am, but I guess I don't assume anything like a blog or infographic online is accurate unless it's from a "good" source (news organization, citing a reputable book, etc.), just as a starting point to find something legitimate to read if it piques my interest in the topic. The writing didn't throw any particular red flags, so I didn't really care if the backend was AI constructed.

And it’s actually attempting a periodic table rather than just using the aesthetics as found in Mendeleev’s.

?

Mendeleev's periodic table was organized by periods of chemical properties...

Yes, the cheese are arranged by properties rather than just looking like a periodic table.

Not very! This is on the "line of purples".

Here's a nice visualization of color perception (there are more modern ones, but we used the 1931 color space when I was working in the field). The horseshoe shape on the outside is the single wavelength colors.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIE_1931_color_space

I call it a pro-human bias, personally.

I would consider myself an M365 power user and I was not aware of this. It is not well promoted--and after all the Copilot crap, I would be annoyed even if it was.

Regardless, I just tried to log in with my work MS account, and I can't do so.

Enterprise is Copilot Cowork one of the frontier agents. Has to be enabled by your organization I believe

Don't forget Tay!

I dunno, the same way they did for decades with public libraries?

It's not a communication with a lawyer, though. Asking a guy on the street if it's illegal to sell the meth you have in your pocket is not privileged communication, and he could definitely testify about that after you got arrested!

That would be hearsay, yes?

Why? He heard you say it and can testify to it.

Repeating something that you heard someone say is the literal definition of hearsay. Typically courts want to hear about facts from people who actually know those facts, not someone who heard someone talking about those facts.

This would fall under the "statement against interest" exception to hearsay, though, because obviously the person who originally said the thing isn't going to want to admit in court that they were committing a crime.

The fact is that he said it.

You aren't repeating a fact you heard him say, you are reporting what you heard him say.

Reporting what you heard someone say is the literal definition of hearsay.

If you want to use someone saying something as evidence in court, they need to say it to the court as directly as is practical. If the person saying it isn't going to say it directly to the court, then it needs to be justified with one of the exceptions to the hearsay rule.

In this example, it would be allowed because the person saying it wouldn't be willing to admit to a crime in court.

It's a statement not offered to prove the truth of the asserted statement - non-hearsay.

It would be hearsay if offered as evidence that you had meth in your pocket. It would not if offered in evidence you were enquiring about the legality, to show intent.

‾\(o O)/‾ maybe, IANAL