No. Youtube is a monopoly. For a huge amount pf historical video, they are the only game in town. Regulating the hell out of them -- especially gigantic fines for the insane amount of copyright piracy their business model depends upon -- is LONG overdue.

IMHO, this article makes grand claims but doesn't substantiate them.

In what way is ML-based biology any different from the myriad statistics-based mechanistic models that systems or computational biology has employed for 50 years to model biological mechanisms and processes? Does the author claim that theory-less parameterless ML models like those in deep NNs are superior because theory-based explicitly parameterized models are doomed to fail? If so, then some specific examples / illustrations would go a long way toward making your case.

A good start for this debate would be to reconsider the term "AI", perhaps choosing a term that's more intuitive, like "automation" or "robot assistant". It's obvious that learning to automate a task is no way to learn how to do it yourself. Nor is asking a robot to do it for you.

Students need to understand that learning to write requires the mastery of multiple distinct cognitive and organizational skills, only the last of which is to generate text that doesn't sound stupid.

Each of writing's component tasks must be understood and explicitly addressed by the student, to wit: (1) choosing a topic to argue, and the component points to make a narrative, (2) outlining the research questions needed to answer each point, and finally, (3) choosing ONLY the relevant points that are necessary AND sufficient to the argument AND based on referenced facts, and that ONLY THEN can be threaded into a coherent logical narrative exposition that makes the intended argument and that leads to the desired conclusion.

Only then has the student actually mastered the craft of writing an essay. If they are not held responsible for implementing each and every one of these steps in the final product, they have NOT learned how to write. Their robot did. That essay is a FAIL because the robot has earned the grade; not they. They just came along for the ride, like ballast in a sailing ship.

Yes, but I have no personal knowledge about radical prophylactic prostatectomy. You might start here:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/361217707_The_role_...

I've read very little about choosing radical prostatectomy very early after detection, but it's likely that it does little to improve survivability:

https://medicine.washu.edu/news/surgery-early-prostate-cance...

That said, if nerve-sparing surgery were done early instead of doing NON-nerve-sparing surgery later (a standard radical prostatectomy), perhaps that might diminish some of the typical side-effects of the standard surgery like impotence or incontinence. But I'm only speculating.

https://www.cancer.org/cancer/types/prostate-cancer/detectio...

You have a direct genetic history of prostate cancer, thus you are at higher risk than most men. At age 57 I had no family history and no symptoms, yet my primary care doc suggested I be tested anyway. My PSA was in fact elevated. I got a biopsy and found my prostate was 80% cancerous. I got it surgically removed just in time. 10 years later I'm still cancer free.

Every day I five thanks that my doctor did NOT follow the standard medical advice back then NOT to test. Forewarned is forearmed.