It says more about the nature of pharmaceutical manufacturing than anything. We often need to screen for impurities, and cyanide is a pretty common one.

I know some companies use spectroscopy (often raman) to scan select pills/capsules/vials to ensure there aren't any contaminants and to ensure the content is uniform throughout the pill rather than concentrated in one part.

Cyanide is found as an impurity from both natural sources and as a byproduct during the manufacturing process, a lot like lead. So it's common enough to warrant the expense of testing

Where is the line and what defines the boundaries for what is termed social media?

For example, is discord still permitted? Ai bots and bad influences exist there as well, but I don't think a ban is the right solution.

> Where is the line and what defines the boundaries for what is termed social media?

Algorithmic sorting + public or semi-public content. Chat rooms have different problems.

> Algorithmic sorting + public or semi-public content.

That includes HN, among other things.

Putting age limits on sites requires age verification for everyone. And no, there isn’t a clever crypto mechanism that makes anonymous age verification work without also making it easy for people to borrow age verification credentials from someone older.

Australia basically just came up with a list of social media sites it applies to. It's perhaps not entirely fair or objectively true. But it lets them age restrict Facebook/Tiktok/etc without restricting IMs or small sites like HN.

> That includes HN

I think when people say “algorithmic sorting” they usually mean an algorithm which generates different, “personalized” sort order for different users.

From my experience as a teacher, I believe that ticktock and instagram are the worst offenders, particularly for young women. The hyper-visuality and ease of consumption of these media sets them apart from platforms which can accommodate actual discussion (such as discord). The very fact that ‘influencer’ is now a profession supports my position.

That being said, I am not of the ‘for gods sake won’t someone think of the children’ brigade. Their goal seems to be to use the vulnerability of young people to control the internet.

Also, the emphasis on final result, without accurately portraying the work that went into it.

It's probably not healthy for younger people to be able to swipe through the finished products of 40+ hours of work, which the videos make seem like just happened.

The existence of this chat proves that llms can respond with "I don't know" if instructed that it has that option.

The author is asking for a button that is accessible and got a button that is accessible. The system never claims to an expert in the subject matter, and yet still gets the ball in the hole.

The author didn't ask "give me the most basic button you can that a screen reader can still access."

The tool did what we expect and gave a reasonable answer, and was able to reason about why it gave those answers when questioned.

I don't see the problem.