与「TryThis」相关的搜索结果

Try to name five specific things you walked past in the last hour without stopping. Most people freeze after one or two. Your brain filters out almost everything you don't focus on. #InteractiveFacts# #BrainFacts# #TryThis# #DidYouKnow# #OneMinuteSmarter#

OK let’s try this: ———————- Pretend you’re 5 and the algorithm is a smart robot that picks which toys (posts) to show you in your toy box (For You feed). The robot doesn’t just count how many times people already played with a toy (likes, reports, etc.). Instead, it looks at you and guesses: • “How likely is this kid to like this toy?” • “How likely is this kid to report this toy as yucky?” • “How long might this kid play with it?” Those guesses are little numbers between 0 and 1 (probabilities). The “weights” are like special multipliers the robot puts on those guesses: • A like-guess might get multiplied by a small number (like 0.5). • A report-guess might get multiplied by a big negative number (like –234). Then the robot adds all those multiplied guesses together to give the toy a final “yay or nay” score and sorts the toys by that score. Why the numbers look so big and why people get confused Reports almost never happen, so the robot’s “will you report this?” guess is usually a tiny number (like 0.0001). To make that tiny guess still matter a little bit in the final score, they give it a big multiplier. People sometimes look at the big number and think “1 report = 468 likes!” 
That’s wrong. It’s not counting real reports or real likes. It’s only multiplying the guesses the robot made about you. If the robot thinks you’re the kind of person who almost never reports anything, even a big weight on “report” barely moves the score. The whole thing is personalized to how you usually behave. The people who wrote the code even put big comments in the GitHub repo so no one (and no other robots) gets confused about this again. That’s the whole idea in kid words: the weights turn the robot’s personal guesses about you into a ranking, not a simple “count the hearts and flags.”

🗣️Voice is transforming daily interactions + 63% of users now talk directly to Gemini, including more “voice only” users + Busy parents are 43% more likely to use voice for everyday tasks + Rolling out 60+ new regional dialects soon, can’t wait for you to try this!

One year ago today a swift I had raised for 17 days fledged from my bedroom window. Please do not try this at home. Birds are very hard to raise without killing accidentally and swifts are almost impossible and need specific specialist care. Here are some amazing facts about her.

For twenty years, "reversing aging" meant a conference slide and a mouse study, and then on 9 June 2026, a company put a partial-reprogramming therapy into a living person for the first time, so here is the race, ranked by closeness to a dosed human: 1. ER-100 (@lifebiosciences). A virus carries OSK, three of the four Yamanaka factors, into the retina, and eight weeks of doxycycline switch them on, winding a cell's age markers backward without erasing what the cell is. Same factors restored sight in old mouse eyes in 2020, @davidasinclair's lab. Phase 1, 18 people, glaucoma and optic-nerve stroke. Safety only, no efficacy yet. 2. NewLimit (@brian_armstrong). Not yet in anyone. In lab-grown human liver, its candidate pushed old cells toward a younger gene pattern, no damage at high doses. Company-reported. Trial guided 2027. 3. TRN-001 (@turn_bio). Skin, still in a dish. Rolled back human skin cells' aging signature by a decade. Company-reported. Cleared FDA pre-IND, hasn't dosed. 4. SB000 (@ShiftBioscience). Flips one gene instead of all four. A preprint reports it matched or beat the full set on aging clocks, without switching on the pluripotency that makes reprogramming risky. It won't say which gene, which drew doubt. @RetroBio_ is dosing people, but with an autophagy drug, not reprogramming. @altos_labs raised $3 billion and has nobody dosed. Nobody has reversed aging in a person. The fourth Yamanaka factor is a cancer gene. Switch all four on in a mouse and leave them on, and it's dead inside four days, but leave that fourth one out and the same mouse carries the other three for eighteen months with no extra tumours. That gap is why a person was allowed to try this.