Starmer's vision quest

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.

monkers

Legendary Member
@mjr

Spot the difference!

''ChatGPT - is there evidence that the use of slip plane cycling helmets results in less brain injury than fixed plane helmets?''

There is currently no significant body of research specifically comparing the effectiveness of "slip-plane" helmets to "fixed-plane" helmets in preventing brain injuries, although both types of helmets are designed to reduce the risk of head injury during cycling.
Here’s a brief overview of the two helmet types:
  1. Fixed-plane helmets: These are traditional cycling helmets, where the outer shell is directly connected to the inner foam, providing a simple but effective level of protection. In the event of a crash, the foam absorbs the impact and dissipates the energy, reducing the forces transmitted to the skull and brain.
  2. Slip-plane helmets: These are a newer design, sometimes referred to as "MIPS" (Multi-directional Impact Protection System) or similar technologies. These helmets have an inner layer that can rotate slightly relative to the outer shell, allowing the helmet to move with the head during an impact. This mechanism is designed to reduce rotational forces that may contribute to brain injuries, particularly in cases of oblique or angled impacts (which are common in cycling crashes).

Research on Slip-Plane Technology (MIPS)​

The MIPS system and similar slip-plane technologies aim to reduce rotational forces and have shown promising results in laboratory studies. Some research has suggested that slip-plane helmets can provide additional protection against rotational brain injuries, such as those caused by concussion, compared to traditional fixed-plane helmets. However, the evidence is not definitive yet in terms of actual real-world effectiveness.
  • Some studies indicate that MIPS helmets might reduce rotational forces by up to 30-40% in certain types of impact.
  • However, the overall impact on reducing brain injuries in cycling crashes in everyday situations remains an area of ongoing research. A major challenge is the difficulty of directly measuring how slip-plane technology translates to real-world outcomes, such as reducing concussion rates or other brain injuries in cycling accidents.

Conclusion​

While slip-plane helmets (like those with MIPS technology) may theoretically offer superior protection against certain types of rotational forces in a crash, more research is needed to definitively confirm whether they result in fewer brain injuries than fixed-plane helmets. For now, both types of helmets are considered effective in reducing the risk of head injury, with slip-plane helmets potentially offering some added benefit in mitigating rotational forces, but not a guaranteed reduction in overall brain injuries.
 

icowden

Squire
In the interests of balance here is what Grok had to say:

The evidence regarding whether slip plane cycling helmets (like those incorporating MIPS technology) result in less brain injury compared to fixed plane helmets is somewhat mixed but leans towards suggesting some benefits in specific scenarios:
  • Reduction in Rotational Forces: Slip plane helmets are designed to reduce rotational forces during impacts, which is believed to be a significant factor in traumatic brain injuries (TBI). A study assessing various helmet technologies found that helmets with slip plane designs, such as MIPS, can significantly reduce peak rotational acceleration and velocity, thereby lowering the strain in brain tissues like the corpus callosum and sulci. This suggests potential for reducing brain injuries in oblique impacts, where rotational motion is more likely.
    https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8109224/
  • Comparison with Conventional Helmets: Research has shown that helmets with technologies like MIPS tend to outperform conventional helmets in reducing the risk of brain injury in certain types of impacts, particularly those involving rotation. However, the effectiveness can be highly sensitive to the impact location, indicating that while there are benefits, they might not be uniform across all types of accidents.
    https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8109224/
  • Criticism and Limitations: There's also criticism or skepticism regarding the overall effectiveness of slip plane technology. Some studies or reviews suggest that while these helmets might offer benefits in lab tests, real-world data and broader epidemiological studies have not consistently shown a clear, definitive reduction in brain injuries across all crash scenarios. The performance in reducing brain injury compared to fixed plane helmets can vary, and some argue that the actual field experience or broader statistical evidence for significantly reduced brain injuries is still debated.
    https://helmets.org/mips.htm
  • Field Data and Real-World Application: Field data specifically comparing slip plane to fixed plane helmets in terms of brain injury outcomes from real-world accidents is less abundant. While lab tests show potential advantages, translating these into real-world benefits requires more comprehensive studies. Some reviews have questioned whether the technology significantly alters outcomes in actual cycling accidents, pointing out that other factors like helmet fit, impact angle, and the nature of the accident play critical roles.
    https://helmets.org/mips.htm
In conclusion, while lab research indicates that slip plane helmets can offer benefits in reducing brain injuries due to rotational forces, the real-world evidence is less conclusive. Helmets with slip plane technology might provide an additional layer of safety in certain scenarios, but the overall protective advantage over traditional helmets needs further real-world validation.


It cites both pubmed in the USA (first two bullets) and helmets.com (second two bullets)
 

AndyRM

Elder Goth
That bit is up for some debate. It is arguable that if you sat down and drew a picture or wrote a song, that what you created would be synthesised from all of the pictures and all of the music that you have heard.

I can't speak for art but whenever you write a piece of music you can always identify influences if you look hard enough. There will always be a bit that sounds like "x". Your piece is unique but can't help being the result of your learning.

AI Bots learn by looking at millions of pictures, not copying them, although because of their vast memory and architecture they may replicate parts of existing works. What they lack at the moment is complex understanding - hence they are very bad at drawing.

It's not really up for debate, certainly not in the case of Adobe who have been caught using peoples' work for their Generative Fill tool.

I do agree though that art/music/literature is always influenced by something though, anyone who says otherwise is a fool. Hell, if it wasn't then critics would be out of a job instantly.
 

monkers

Legendary Member
"Can a magic hat save your life?"

When the head is severed from the body, but the brain is uninjured thanks to a magic hat, that's real magic.

That said I do wear a slip plane magic hat along with 30kg of stainless steel chain mail neck guard obviously.

Don't have nightmares.

NDxmlimDe5cc4P7WvVPHgXM5ikwtN1gzk0tHVfOfJN16iPRJ7u.jpg
 

icowden

Squire
It's not really up for debate, certainly not in the case of Adobe who have been caught using peoples' work for their Generative Fill tool.
If by caught you mean using freely available photos from creative commons type sources, then yes, they do use public photos for that. Not much of a gotcha though.
 

Psamathe

Active Member
Re: Tulip Saddiq: One aspect to this that has really shocked me is
There was particular unease over her claim that she was unaware of the origins of her flat in King’s Cross
(from https://www.theguardian.com/politic...i-corruption-job-seen-by-insiders-as-own-goal)
Who can be gifted a London flat and then be unaware of the origins? Gifted a flat is to me quite a "wow, what worlddo these people live in" but to then be now aware of it's origins!.

But then it was a daft post for Starmer to have appointed her to
The warning signs were always there. When a photo of Tulip Siddiq standing alongside Vladimir Putin and her aunt, the now ousted leader of Bangladesh, emerged in 2015, alarm bells rang within the Labour party.
(from https://www.theguardian.com/politic...i-corruption-job-seen-by-insiders-as-own-goal)

Ian
 

AndyRM

Elder Goth
If by caught you mean using freely available photos from creative commons type sources, then yes, they do use public photos for that. Not much of a gotcha though.

Nope. Work created by users of their software.

Creative Commons and Open Source stuff is fair game and I have no problem with that.
 

Psamathe

Active Member
Quite a few website operators/owners are blocking AI bots. From CloudFlare

image.png


Guessing but I guess many site owners will be considering AI and deciding and thus thinking and thus not "fake news" sites whilst those publishing drivel might be more likely to want their eg conspiracy theories/lies/PR to spread far and wide and welcom AI bots - thus skewing the training data into an even higher garbage.

Ian
 
OP
OP
mjr

mjr

Active Member
I'm not very "across" these things, but Adobe are a profit-making business, so is this actualliy allowed by "creative commons" licenceces?
It depends which creative commons licence is used. Some forbid all commercial use they can. Some forbid all modifications. Others only require the creator to be mentioned. At least one not even that. Some AI tools ignore them all, though.
 

Psamathe

Active Member
For me this beggars belief
Appeal court decided "A shock court of appeal ruling in October opened up the otherwise contained investigation. Judges determined that failing to disclose the sum and terms of any commission arrangements on car loans – not just historic DCAs – amounted to a “secret” deal and was unlawful."

Now Ms Reeves is interfering because she thinks that awarding compensation might cause "economic damage".
If something is illegal and compensation is due (as found by courts) then that's the law and not for Ms Reeves to start interfering.
The chancellor, Rachel Reeves, has launched a rare bid to intervene in a supreme court hearing in the car finance commission scandal that could reduce the £30bn-plus compensation bill lenders currently face.
...
The Treasury submission on Monday added that the case might “generate a perception that regulation in the UK is uncertain”. The letter, first reported by the Financial Times, also warned judges that “any remedy should be proportionate to the loss actually suffered by the consumer and avoid conferring a windfall”.
(from https://www.theguardian.com/busines...nce-case-lenders-shares-lloyds-close-brothers)
To me it should be for the courts to establish and decide and not subject to political interference as a politician seeks to further their policies.

Ian
 
Top Bottom