[HN Gopher] SimpleFold: Folding proteins is simpler than you think
___________________________________________________________________
SimpleFold: Folding proteins is simpler than you think
https://arxiv.org/abs/2509.18480
Author : kevlened
Score : 216 points
Date : 2025-09-26 18:01 UTC (4 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (github.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (github.com)
| kylehotchkiss wrote:
| > Folding Proteins Is Simpler Than You Think
|
| Then why do we need customized LLM models, two of which seemed to
| require the resources of 2 of the wealthiest companies on earth
| (this and google's alphafold) to do it?
| wrs wrote:
| How simple did you think it was before?
| kylehotchkiss wrote:
| Not simple! Wasn't/Isn't X-ray crystallography what it
| usually takes to determine the structure?
| wrsh07 wrote:
| Folding proteins is pretty valuable and this model is
| comparably small
|
| This doesn't seem like particularly wasteful overinvestment.
|
| Granted, I'm more excited about the research coming out of arc
| jjtheblunt wrote:
| what are you referring to by arc?
| ben_w wrote:
| Not op, but I presume the ARC prize/ARC-AGI series of
| tests: https://arcprize.org/
| hirenj wrote:
| Arc institute probably.
| aDyslecticCrow wrote:
| Its not an LLM, It's a transformer. I know the terms are really
| being butchered in media, but if we're gonna use the term LLM
| instead of AI, we better make sure it's actually a "large
| language model" that is being refereed to. If you're unsure,
| call it a neural net, or machine learning algorithm, or AI.
|
| It's indeed a large model. But if you knew the history of the
| field, it's a massive improvement. It has progressed from a
| almost "NP" problem only barely approachable with distributed
| cluster compute, to something that can run on a single server
| with some pricey hardware. The smallest model is only here is
| only 100M parameters and the largest is 3B parameters, that's
| very approachable to run locally with the right hardware, and
| easily within the range for a small biotech lab (compared to
| the cost of other biotech equipment)
|
| It's also (i'd argue) one of the only truly economically and
| sociably valuable AI technologies we've found over the past few
| years. Every simulated protein fold is saving a biotech company
| weeks of work for highly skilled biotech engineers and very
| expensive chemicals (In a way that that truly only supplement
| rather than replace the work). Any progress in the field is a
| huge win for society.
| kylehotchkiss wrote:
| I'm more teasing the title than the tech :) I'm all for
| innovation in the field especially with so much bio funding
| cut!
| barbarr wrote:
| Why is apple doing protein folding?
| mabedan wrote:
| Prowlly cuz Siri didn't work out
| Forbo wrote:
| Reputation laundering?
| jama211 wrote:
| What's there to launder? Perhaps they shouldn't have as good
| a reputation as they do, but you can't deny they do have a
| good reputation.
| amelius wrote:
| Reputation of what? They are just an office appliance
| company.
| axoltl wrote:
| You're confusing your opinion of the company with the
| perception by the general public. Apple's definitely not
| perceived as 'an office appliance company' by your
| average person. It's considered a high-end luxury brand
| by many[1].
|
| 1: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/361238549_Con
| sumer_...
| robotresearcher wrote:
| I think their public sales data shows Apple sells mainly
| to consumers, and mainly iPhones at that.
|
| Like 1980s SONY, they are the top of the line consumer
| electronics giant of the time. The iPhone is even more
| successful than the Walkman or Trinitron TVs.
|
| They also sell the most popular laptops,to consumers as
| well as corporate. Like SONY's VAIO but more popular
| again.
| robotresearcher wrote:
| The move in consumer electronics leadership from Japan to
| the US, Korea, and now China is probably pretty
| interesting to understand.
|
| Can anyone recommend a good book or article about this?
| EasyMark wrote:
| They have a much better reputation that most companies. I
| think they're doing okay compared to google, facebook,
| oracle, etc. Few people are going to think a corp is "doing
| good" but reputation does still matter somewhat.
| IncreasePosts wrote:
| They're jealous they haven't won a Nobel prize
| nextos wrote:
| Local inference. I imagine they have an interest in making this
| and other cutting edge models small enough to be possible to do
| quick inference on their desktop machines. The article shows
| that, with Figure 1E demonstrating inference on an M2 Max 64
| GB.
|
| Frankly, it's a great idea. If you are a small pharma company,
| being able to do quick local inference removes lots of barriers
| and gatekeeping. You can even afford to do some Bayesian
| optimization or RL with lab feedback on some generated
| sequences.
|
| In comparison, running AlphaFold requires significant
| resources. And IMHO, their usage of multiple alignments is a
| bit hacky, makes performance worse on proteins without close
| homologs, and requires tons of preprocessing.
|
| A few years back, ESM from Meta already demonstrated that
| alignment-free approaches are possible and perform well.
| AlphaFold has no secret sauce, it's just a seq2seq problem, and
| many different approaches work well, including attention-free
| SSMs.
| lovasoa wrote:
| How do you call the opposite of green washing? When you want to
| show that you are burning as much energy on training models as
| the others.
| giancarlostoro wrote:
| No idea, but can I be signed up for R&D jobs where you don't
| necessarily build something generating revenue?
|
| Maybe these are just projects they use to test and polish their
| AI chips? Not sure.
| shpongled wrote:
| Probably because ByteDance and Facebook (spun out into
| EvolutionaryScale) are doing it
| robotresearcher wrote:
| Apple has an ML research group. They do a mixture of obviously-
| Apple things, other applications, generally useful
| optimizations, and basic research.
|
| https://machinelearning.apple.com/
| bobmarleybiceps wrote:
| This may not be the actual reason in this case, but I think
| it's good to be aware of: A non-zero chunk of "ai for science"
| research done at tech companies is basically done for
| marketing. Even in cases where it's not directly beneficial for
| the companies products or is unlikely to really lead to
| anything substantial, it is still good for "prestige"
| wild_pointer wrote:
| Did you just assume what I think about protein folding
| simplicity?!
| IAmBroom wrote:
| Link goes the github repository behind the article you might want
| to read.
|
| https://arxiv.org/abs/2509.18480
| IAmBroom wrote:
| And the abstract alone says (if I'm reading it correctly), "It
| still takes AI; just not nearly as much as others are doing."
| mentalgear wrote:
| another form: transformers for the task
| serjester wrote:
| For those interested in the GitHub link.
|
| https://github.com/apple/ml-simplefold
| turblety wrote:
| I wonder why Apple can create a model to fold proteins, but still
| can't get Siri to control the phone competently? I'm not sure I
| agree with Apple's priorities. I guess these things are not
| synchronous and they can work on multiple things at a time.
| tanelpoder wrote:
| I guess it's because SimpleFold came from a research lab with
| different autonomy and less competing interests and internal
| politics...
| frenchie4111 wrote:
| I am genuinely interested where the strong negativity towards
| Siri has come from in recent culture. From what I gather it's
| likely due to the high expectations we have for Apple. But what
| I don't really get is why is there not a similar amount of
| negativity being directed at Google or Samsung, who both have
| equally shit phone AI assistants (obviously this is just from
| my perspective, I am a daily user of both iOS and a Samsung
| Android)
|
| I am not trying to defend Apple or Siri by any means. I think
| the product absolutely should (and will) improve. I am just
| curious to explore why there is such negativity being directed
| specifically at Apple's AI assistant.
| Invictus0 wrote:
| For the last three iOS major versions, Siri has been unable
| to execute the simple command "shuffle the playlist 'Jams'",
| or any variation, like "play the playlist Jams on shuffle". I
| am upset for that reason.
| samuelg123 wrote:
| I think Siri has always been criticized, likely because it
| has never worked super well and it has the most eyes (or
| ears) on it (iPhones still have 50% market share in the US).
|
| And now that we have ChatGPT with voice mode, Gemini Live,
| etc which have incredible speech recognition and reasoning
| comparatively, it's harder to argue that "every voice
| assistant is bad" still.
| xp84 wrote:
| As a vocal critic of Siri, I can give you a number of reasons
| we hate it:
|
| 1. It seems to be actively getting worse. On a daily basis, I
| see it responding to queries nonsensically, like when i say
| "play (song) by (artist)" (I have Apple Music) by opening my
| Sirius app and putting on a random thing that isn't even that
| artist. Other trivial commands are frequently just met with
| apologies or searching the web.
|
| 2. Over a year ago Apple conducted a flashy announcement full
| of promises about how Siri would not only do the things that
| it's been marketed as being able to do for the last decade,
| but also things that no one has seen an assistant do. Many
| people believe that announcement was based on fantasy
| thinking and those people are looking more and more correct
| every day that Apple ships no actual improvements to Siri.
|
| 3. Apple also shipped a visual overhaul of how Siri looks,
| which gives the impression that work has been done, leading
| people to be even more disappointed when Siri continues to be
| a pile of trash.
|
| 4. The only competitor that makes sense to compare is Google,
| since no one else has access to do useful things on your
| device with your data. At least Google has a clear path to an
| LLM-based assistant, since they've built an LLM. It seems
| believable that android users will have access to a Gemini-
| based assistant, whereas it appears to most of us that
| Apple's internal dysfunction has rendered them unable to ship
| something of that caliber.
| citizenpaul wrote:
| Is it just my rosie glasses or did siri work much better in
| the first couple of years and seem to decline continually
| since then. I actually used it a lot initially then
| eventually disabled it as it never worked anymore.
| devmor wrote:
| I feel like the same is true of a lot of products that
| moved from being programmatically connected ML workflows to
| multi-modal AI.
|
| We, the consumer, have received inferior products because
| of the vague promise that the company might one day be able
| to make it cheaper if they invest now.
| SoftTalker wrote:
| I've disabled Siri as much as I possibly can. I've never even
| tried to use it. I would do the same for any other AI
| assistant. I don't like that they are always listening, and I
| just don't like talking to computers. I find it unnatural,
| and I get irrationally angry when they don't understand what
| I want.
|
| If I could buy a phone without an assistant I would see that
| as a desirable feature.
| al_borland wrote:
| Something like this doesn't actually have to work. There were
| no expectations at all in this space.
|
| Meanwhile, people expect perfection from Siri. At this point a
| new version of Siri will never live up to people's
| expectations. Had they released something on-par with ChatGPT,
| people would hate it and probably file a class action lawsuit
| against Apple over it.
|
| The entire company isn't going to work on Siri. In a large
| company there are a lot of priorities, and some things that
| happen on the side as well. For all we know this was one
| person's weekend project to help learn something new that will
| later be applied to the priorities.
|
| I've made plenty of hobby projects related to work that weren't
| important or priorities, but what I learned along the want
| proved extremely valuable to key deliverables down the road.
| mapmeld wrote:
| As I understand it, Siri and Alexa could be plugged into an
| LLM, but changing it to an "open world" device that can tell
| your kid something disturbing, text all of your contacts, buy
| groceries, etc. comes with serious risk of reputational harm.
| While still falling short of people's expectations if it isn't
| ChatGPT-quality. OpenAI is new enough that they get to play by
| different rules.
| EasyMark wrote:
| Fair point, even X was able to pump out a usable AI, grok.
| stephenpontes wrote:
| I remember first hearing about protein folding with the Folding
| @Home project (https://foldingathome.org) back when I had a spare
| media server and energy was cheap (free) in my college dorm. I'm
| not knowledgable on this, but have we come a long way in terms of
| making protein folding simpler on today's hardware, or is this
| only applicable to certain types of problems?
|
| It seems like the Folding @Home project is still around!
| nkjoep wrote:
| Team F@H forever!
| _joel wrote:
| Yep, that and SETI@Home. I loved the eye candy, even if I
| didn't know what it fully meant.
| seydor wrote:
| How come we don't have AI@Home
| throwup238 wrote:
| The network bandwidth between nodes is a bigger limitation
| than compute. The newest Nvidia cards come with 400gbit
| busses now to communicate between them, even on a single
| motherboard.
|
| Compared to SETI or Folding @Home, this would work
| _glacially_ slow for AI models.
| fourthark wrote:
| Seems like training would be a better match, where you
| need tons of compute but don't care about latency.
| gregsadetsky wrote:
| That and project RC5 from the same time period..! :-)
|
| https://www.distributed.net/RC5
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RSA_Secret-Key_Challenge
|
| I wonder what kind of performance would I get on a M1
| computer today... haha
|
| EDIT: people are still participating in rc5-72...??
| https://stats.distributed.net/projects.php?project_id=8
| roughly wrote:
| As I understand it, folding at home was a physics based
| simulation solver, whereas alphafold and its progeny (including
| this) are statistical methods. The statistical methods are
| much, much cheaper computationally, but rely on existing
| protein folds and can't generate strong predictions for
| proteins that don't have some similarities to proteins in their
| training set.
|
| In other words, it's a different approach that trades off
| versatility for speed, but that trade off is significant enough
| to make it viable to generate protein folds for really any
| protein you're interested in - it moves folding from something
| that's almost computationally infeasible for most projects to
| something that you can just do for any protein as part of a
| normal workflow.
| ge96 wrote:
| I contributed a lot on there too used my 3080Ti-FE as a small
| heater in the winter
| EasyMark wrote:
| lol I still run it in the winter but I feel bad running it in
| the summer, so I don't run it when A/C or heating is not
| necessary. I figure some contribution is infinitely more than
| 0 contribution.
| EasyMark wrote:
| They're still going and have made some great discoveries over
| the years.
|
| https://foldingathome.org/papers-results/?lng=en
| jffry wrote:
| Apparently from a F@H blog post [1] they say it's still useful
| to know the dynamics of how it folded, in addition to the final
| folded shape. And that having ML-folded proteins is a rich
| target for simulation to validate and to understand how the
| protein works
|
| [1] https://foldingathome.org/2024/05/02/alphafold-opens-new-
| opp...
| foodevl wrote:
| I was curious what the protein picture was showing: "Figure 1
| Example predictions of SimpleFold on targets ... with ground
| truth shown in light aqua and prediction in deep teal."
|
| and now I'm even more curious why they thought "light aqua" vs
| "deep teal" would be a good choice
| gilleain wrote:
| Well, figure a) shows a ribbon representation of the fold (as
| helices and strands) of the protein 7QSW
| (https://www.ebi.ac.uk/pdbe/entry/pdb/7qsw) which is RubisCO
| (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RuBisCO), an plant protein that
| plays a key role in photosynthesis.
|
| The different colours are for the predicted and 'real' (ground
| truth) models. The fact that it is hard to distinguish is
| partly the - as you point out - weird colour choice, but also
| because they are so close together. An inaccurate prediction
| would have parts that stand out more as they would not align
| well in 3D space.
| underdeserver wrote:
| So, how does this compare to AlphaFold?
| mentalgear wrote:
| seems like they use the normal transformer architecture versus
| deep fold's more specialised machine-learning approaches.
| Invictus0 wrote:
| They'll do anything but fix Siri
| mentalgear wrote:
| They can keep on doing stuff like this that's open-source and
| beneficial to society.
| frenchie4111 wrote:
| I am curious to hear an expert weigh in on this approach's
| implications for protein folding research. This sounds cool but
| it's really unclear to me what the implications are
| geremiiah wrote:
| Their representation is simpler, just a transformer. That means
| you can just plug in all the theory and tools that have been
| developed specifically for transformers, most importantly you
| can scale the model easier. But more than that, I think, it
| shows that there was no magic to AlphaFold. The details of the
| architecture and training method didn't matter much. All that
| was needed was training a big enough model on a large enough
| dataset. Indeed lots of people who have experimented with
| AlphaFold have found it to behave similiar to LLMs, i.e. it
| performs well on inputs close to the training dataset and but
| it doesn't generalize well at all.
| visarga wrote:
| > But more than that, I think, it shows that there was no
| magic to AlphaFold. The details of the architecture and
| training method didn't matter much. All that was needed was
| training a big enough model on a large enough dataset.
|
| People often like to say that we just need one more
| algorithmic breakthrough or two for AGI. But in reality it's
| the dataset and the environment based learning. Almost any
| model would do if you collected the data. It's not in the
| model, it's outside where we need to work on.
| aDyslecticCrow wrote:
| I think the sentiment that simplicity is good, is a false
| conclusion. Simplicity is simply good scientific methodology.
|
| Doing too many things at once makes methods hard to adopt and
| makes conclusions harder to draw. So we try to find simple
| methods that show measurable gain, so we can adapt it to
| future approaches.
|
| Its a cycle between complexity and simplicity. When a new
| simple and scalable approach beats the previous state of art,
| that just means we discovered a new local maxima hill to
| climp up.
| epistasis wrote:
| It may be a change in future models, perhaps. Here's one
| person's opinion:
|
| https://genomely.substack.com/p/simplefold-and-the-future-of...
|
| But as with anything in research, it will take months and years
| to see what the actual implications are. Predictions of future
| directions can only go so far!
| 331c8c71 wrote:
| It is for structure prediction, not folding (rolleyes).
| jandom wrote:
| Pssst they'll realise scientists hand out here too
| barbazoo wrote:
| No folding here. Proteins go on the hanger or in the drawer.
| kazinator wrote:
| I'm satisfied with with folding roast beef onto a sandwich, or
| folding egg whites into batter. All the protein folding action I
| could ever want.
| vbarrielle wrote:
| A paper that says: "our approach is simpler than the state of the
| art". But also does not loudly say "our approach is significantly
| behind the state of the art on all metrics". Not easy to get
| published, but I guess putting it as a preprint with a big
| company's name will help...
| shpongled wrote:
| It's not totally novel, but it's very cool to see the continued
| simplification of protein folding models - AF2 -> AF3 was a
| reduction in model architecture complexity, and this is a another
| step in the direction of the bitter lesson.
| hashta wrote:
| I'm not sure AF3's performance would hold up if it hadn't been
| trained on data from AF2 which itself bakes in a lot of
| inductive bias like equivariance
| nextworddev wrote:
| In industry Google practically dominates this field
| hashta wrote:
| One caveat that's easy to miss: the "simple" model here didn't
| just learn folding from raw experimental structures. Most of its
| training data comes from AlphaFold-style predictions. Millions of
| protein structures that were themselves generated by big MSA-
| based and highly engineered models.
|
| It's not like we can throw away all the inductive biases and MSA
| machinery, someone upstream still had to build and run those
| models to create the training corpus.
| mapmeld wrote:
| And AlphaFold was validated with experimental observation of
| folded proteins using X-rays
| godelski wrote:
| Is this so unusual? Almost everything that is simple was once
| considered complex. That's the thing about emergence, you have
| to go through all the complexities _first_ to find the
| generalized and simpler formulations. It should be obvious that
| things in nature run off of relatively simple rulesets, but it
| 's like looking at a Game of Life and trying to reverse
| engineer those rules _AND_ the starting parameters. Anyone
| telling you such a task is easy is full of themselves. But then
| again, who seriously believes that P=NP?
| hashta wrote:
| To people outside the field, the title/abstract can make it
| sound like folding is just inherently simple now, but this
| model wouldn't exist without the large synthetic dataset
| produced by the more complex AF. The "simple" architecture is
| still using the complex model indirectly through
| distillation. We didn't really extract new tricks to design a
| simpler model from scratch, we shifted the complexity from
| the model space into the data space (think GPT-5 =>
| GPT-5-mini, there's no GPT-5-mini without GPT-5)
| stavros wrote:
| But this is just a detail, right? If we went and
| painstakingly catalogued millions of proteins, we'd be able
| to use the simple model without needing a complex model to
| generated data, no?
| aDyslecticCrow wrote:
| What i take away is the simplicity and scaling behavior. The ML
| field often sees an increase in module complexity to reach
| higher scores, and then a breakthrough where a simple model
| performs on-par with the most complex. That such a "simple"
| architecture works this well on its own, means we can
| potentially add back the complexity again to reach further. Can
| we add back MSA now? where will that take us?
|
| My rough understanding of field is that a "rough" generative
| model makes a bunch of decent guesses, and more formal
| "verifiers" ensure they abide by the laws of physics and
| geometry. The AI reduce the unfathomably large search-space so
| the expensive simulation doesn't need to do so much wasted work
| on dead-ends. If the guessing network improves, then the whole
| process speeds up.
|
| - I'm recalling the increasingly complex transfer functions in
| redcurrant networks,
|
| - The deep pre-processing chains before skip forward layers.
|
| - The complex normalization objectives before Relu.
|
| - The convoluted multi-objective GAN networks before diffusion.
|
| - The complex multi-pass models before full-convolution
| networks.
|
| So basically, i'm very excited by this. Not because this itself
| is an optimal architecture, but precisely because it isn't!
| nextos wrote:
| > Can we add back MSA now?
|
| Using MSAs might be a local optimum. ESM showed good
| performance on some protein problems without MSAs. MSAs offer
| a nice inductive bias and better average performance.
| However, the cost is doing poorly on proteins where MSAs are
| not accurate. These include B and T cell receptors, which are
| clinically very relevant.
|
| Isomorphic Labs, Oxford, MRC, and others have started the
| OpenBind Consortium (https://openbind.uk) to generate large-
| scale structure and affinity data. I believe that once more
| data is available, MSAs will be less relevant as model
| inputs. They are "too linear".
| dyauspitr wrote:
| Isn't this a largely solved problem after Alphafold?
| samfriedman wrote:
| Maybe they've been working on it, but got scooped?
| zamadatix wrote:
| I don't think that's the case. The numbers in the paper
| suggest ~92% of the training data comes from pre-existing AI
| models, including AlphaFold, and they claim things like:
|
| > We largely adopt the data pipeline implemented in Boltz-11
| 1https://github.com/jwohlwend/boltz (Wohlwend et al., 2024),
| which is an open-source replication of AlphaFold3
|
| I believe the story here is largely that they simplified the
| architecture and scaled it to 3B parameters while maintaining
| leading results.
| phoenicyan wrote:
| Curious since AlphaFold got released: have classical molecular
| dynamics sims in this area become obsolete, at least for protein
| folding? How does the research coming out of venues like DESRES
| compare? Are they working on more specific problems in the same
| area or are they in a different business altogether?
| the__alchemist wrote:
| No. AlphaFold doesn't do dynamics; it does end-state snapshots
| only. It does not do anything about the motion of the atoms,
| which is the core functionality of MD.
| tripplyons wrote:
| I was curious about what was released, and the parameters for
| AlphaFold V3 are only given to certain groups for non-
| commercial use: https://github.com/google-
| deepmind/alphafold3?tab=readme-ov-...
|
| However, it seems like anyone can download the parameters for
| AlphaFold V2: https://github.com/google-
| deepmind/alphafold?tab=readme-ov-f...
| dekhn wrote:
| MD was never really a viable way to do structure prediction, so
| it didn't become obsolete with AlphaFold. Instead, MD is more
| useful for studying the physical process of protein folding
| (before the protein folds to its final structure, as well as
| once it has reached its final structure and sort of jiggles and
| wiggles around that).
| ziofill wrote:
| In the plots in Fig. 4 it looks like they should have continued
| the training because the performance was still climbing, am I
| reading it incorrectly?
| GistNoesis wrote:
| Intellectually, I don't like this approach.
|
| Predicting the end-result from the sequence of protein directly
| is prone to miss any new phenomenon and would just
| regurgitate/interpolate the training datasets.
|
| I would much prefer an approach based on first principles.
|
| In theory folding is easy, it's just running a simulation of your
| protein surrounded by some water molecules for the same number of
| nano-seconds nature do.
|
| The problem is that usually this take a long time because
| evolving a system needs to compute the energy of the system as a
| position of the atoms which is a complex problem involving
| Quantum Mechanics. It's mostly due to the behavior of the
| electrons, but because they are much lighter they operate on a
| faster timescale. You typically don't care about them, only the
| effect they have on your atoms.
|
| In the past, you would use various Lennard-Jones potentials for
| pairs of atoms when the pair of atoms are unbounded, and other
| potentials when they are bonded and it would get very complex
| very quickly. But now there are deep-learning based approach to
| compute the energy of the system by using a neural network. (See
| (Gromacs) Neural Network Potentials
| https://rowansci.com/publications/introduction-to-nnps ). So you
| train these networks so that they learn the local interactions
| between atoms based on trajectories generated from ab-initio
| theories. This allows you to have a faster simulator which
| approximate the more complex physics. It's in a sort just
| tabulating using a neural network the effect of the electrons
| would have in a specific atom arrangements according to the
| theory you have chosen.
|
| At any time if you have some doubt, you can always run the slower
| simulator in the small local neighborhood to check that the
| effective field neural network approximation holds.
|
| Only then once you have your simulator which is able to fold, you
| can generate some dataset of pairs "sequence of protein" to "end
| of trajectory", to learn the shortcut like Alpha/Simple/Fold do.
| And when in doubt you can go back to the slower more precise
| method.
|
| If you had enough data and can train perfectly a model with
| sufficient representation power, you could theoretically infer
| the correct physics just from the correspondence initial to final
| arrangements. But if you don't have enough data it will just
| learn some shortcut and accept that it will be wrong some times.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-09-26 23:00 UTC)