This initiative, implemented nationally, has the potential to yield substantial savings in public health investments, particularly within the realm of preventive healthcare.
I'm lucky enough to have a great doctor and access to excellent Bay Area medical care. I've taken lots of standard screening tests over the years and have tried lots of "health tech" devices and tools.
With all this said, by far the most useful preventative medical advice that I've ever received has come from unleashing coding agents on my genome, having them investigate my specific mutations, and having them recommend specific follow-on tests and treatments.
Population averages are population averages, but we ourselves are not averages. For example, it turns out that I probably have a 30x(!) higher-than-average predisposition to melanoma. Fortunately, there are both specific supplements that help counteract the particular mutations I have, and of course I can significantly dial up my screening frequency. So, this is very useful to know.
I don't know exactly how much the analysis cost, but probably less than $100. Sequencing my genome cost a few hundred dollars.
(One often sees papers and articles claiming that models aren't very good at medical reasoning. These analyses are usually based on employing several-year-old models, which is a kind of ludicrous malpractice. It is true that you still have to carefully monitor the agents' reasoning, and they do on occasion jump to conclusions or skip steps, requiring some nudging and re-steering. But, overall, they are almost literally infinitely better for this kind of work than what one can otherwise obtain today.)
There are still lots of questions about how this will diffuse and get adopted, but it seems very clear that medical practice is about to improve enormously. Exciting times!
After he won the Nobel Prize in Literature in 1957, Albert Camus wrote a letter of thanks to his favorite childhood teacher, whom he'd never forgotten. It's beautiful.
The scariest finding in this paper: the subjects couldn't tell it was happening.
UPenn ran this study on 48 healthy adults. One group slept 8 hours. Another slept 6. Another slept 4. For 14 straight days. They tested cognitive performance every 2 hours from 7:30am to 11:30pm.
The 6-hour group's reaction times, working memory, and sustained attention deteriorated on a near-linear curve. By day 14 they were performing at the same level as someone who hadn't slept at all in 48 hours. The 4-hour group hit that threshold by day 6.
Here's the part that should unsettle everyone who thinks they "do fine" on 6 hours: the subjects' self-reported sleepiness flatlined after the first few days. Their brains kept getting worse. Their perception of how impaired they were stopped updating. The cognitive decline was invisible to the person experiencing it.
The researchers found a hard threshold. Any wakefulness beyond 15.84 hours in a day produces cumulative neurobiological cost. That cost compounds every single day you exceed it and does not reset with a weekend of sleeping in.
About 35% of American adults sleep less than 7 hours a night. 40% of those get 6 hours or less. In 1942 that number was 11%. We built an entire professional culture around a sleep schedule that this paper says is functionally equivalent to pulling consecutive all-nighters.
"I'm fine on 6 hours" is the most common response to sleep research. The first thing chronic sleep debt destroys is your ability to notice chronic sleep debt.
My latest, for @TIME: Why Dubai Will Abide
NB: If you’d told me 25 years ago I’d someday describe Dubai as one of the world’s great cities, I’d have laughed you out of the room.
But here I am.
https://t.co/kouHlhGQsT
Half of US data centers planned for 2026 are expected to be delayed or canceled. One big reason is shortage of electrical equipment, such as transformers, switchgear and batteries. US doesn't have manufacturing capacity, forcing it to rely on imports. 🎁🔗 https://t.co/NLpWJCChjo
This is my favorite climate change chart. Japanese monks, aristocrats, and emperors kept meticulous records of cherry blossom festivals for 1,200 years and accidentally built the world's longest climate dataset.
While social media is polarising, evidence suggests AI may nudge people towards the centre.
This holds true of all studied models. Grok is more right-leaning than other models, but also has depolarising effects.
By @jburnmurdoch.
@rajeshsawhney Singapore, KL, Hong Kong Doha and Riyadh should be in an expansion drive after that, eventually an ACC super league, a la UEFA Champions League?
Academics spend 3 years on research.
Then they realize the real work is explaining it in 60 seconds on an Instagram reel.
Nobody warned us about this part.