Excrubulent @ Excrubulent @slrpnk.net

Posts

8

Comments

2,232

Joined

2 yr. ago

Fascinating, but it doesn't really explain why mandarins come pre-sliced, since they're at the top of that chart.

Although being easy to eat seems like an evolutionary advantage for fruit even if humans aren't doing it.

Do they have fuji 9?

Sure but they still don't have to raise the rent at every opportunity, that's still a choice.

Also though the largest landlords are in a position to create artificial scarcity by buying up properties just to keep them empty, so people don't have other options.

Because issuing a prohibition is basically always a punishment of the people to distract from who is actually causing the problem.

From a political standpoint it very much is either/or, this is done to exhaust any momentum towards systemic change.

"Ban the children to protect them" is an extremely shortsighted way to approach any policy or social ill. Kids will find a way to access social media, and this ban means they'll need to do it in secret. So now anybody preying on them through those means has their implicit cooperation in covering up the abuse. That includes the media platforms themselves.

Also, why would you need to ban children from social media if the addictive strategies were under control?

A ban like this is only going to cause harm.

Always remember that "the market" is just a signal to the landlord that they could get more if the property were on the market today. It's still their choice to squeeze you to take advantage of that. "It's the market" is code for "because I can".

Also they know that people don't want to move every year or two, so they can absolutely raise the rent above market level without you wanting to leave yet. This has the effect of pushing the market higher. The switching cost is very high, so it's in their favour that way too.

A landlord I knew about through a friend said they never raised the rent as long as their property is being paid off, because they would rather have it occupied and being paid than the tenants leave and the place sit empty.

Not to say that's a good landlord by any means, but there is a choice. The market isn't a mandate.

I mean if you find that arrangment happens to you organically then great, but ultimately if you have three people all together, that's three pairs. Four people is six pairs.

There's no getting around that fact, that's just how many combinations there are. And if just one of those pairs breaks up for whatever reason, then that mutual group stops working. It's a very tenuous arrangement. It can also be a big strain on the other pairs when that happens, especially if it breaks with the understanding of what the group is supposed to be.

That's why I think it's best not to have that kind of arrangement as a goal. It can happen, but trying to make it happen creates a situation where some pairs will feel pressure to go along with it even if they're not a good match, which is a recipe for further drama. If there's no goal like that, then people can feel the freedom to keep their connection loose if they feel like it.

More power to the rear makes sense because you get more traction at the rear under normal acceleration, not just when carrying a load. It's pretty typical of electric cars to do this, just like it's typical to have bigger brakes on the front of all cars, because there's more traction at the front under braking.

There's also the issue of torque vectoring. Without a differential, torque vectoring is essential, but under acceleration torque vectoring to the rear wheels is much more effective than to the front wheels, so that's another reason to split the rear power but not the front.

He proposed a moon cannon. The moon cannon was wrong, as wrong as thinking an LLM can have any fidelity whatsoever. That's all that's needed for my analogy to make the point I want to make. Whether rockets count as artillery or not really doesn't change that.

Cannons are not rockets. LLMs are not thinking machines.

Being occasionally right like a stopped clock is not what "fidelity" means in this context. Fidelity implies some level of adherence to a model of the world, but the LLM simply has no model, so it has zero fidelity.

Interesting article, but you have to be aware of the flipside: "people said flight was impossible", "people said the earth didn't revolve around the sun", "people said the internet was a fad, and now people think AI is a fad".

It's cherry-picking. They're taking the relatively rare examples of transformative technology and projecting that level of impact and prestige onto their new favoured fad.

And here's the thing, the "information superhighway" was a fad that also happened to be an important technology.

Also the rock argument vanishes the moment anyone arrives with actual reasoning that goes beyond the heuristic. So here's some actual reasoning:

GenAI is interesting, but it has zero fidelity. Information without fidelity is just noise, so a system that can't solve the fidelity problem can't do information work. Information work requires fidelity.

And "fidelity" is just a fancy way of saying "truth", or maybe "meaning". Even as conscious beings we haven't really cracked that issue, and I don't think you can make a machine that understands meaning without creating AGI.

Saying we can solve the fidelity problem is like Jules Verne in 1867 saying we could get to the moon with a cannon because of "what progress artillery science has made during the last few years". We're just not there yet, and until we are, the cannon might have some uses, but it's not space technology.

Interestingly, artillery science had its role in getting us to the moon, but that was because it gave us the rotating workpiece lathe for making smooth bore holes, which gave us efficient steam engines, which gave us the industrial revolution. Verne didn't know it, but that critical development had already happened nearly a century prior. Cannons weren't really a factor in space beyond that.

Edit: actually metallurgy and solid fuel propellants were crucial for space too, and cannons had a lot to do with that as well. This is all beside the point.

We need to go deeper.

Okay, this is a deep cut, literally, but that's what a salt mine looks like.

The article mentions that some of the sources used to poison the models are far right, so that doesn't support that narrative, but it wouldn't surprise me if someone on the right wanted to spin it that way anyway.

See that would require them to not be nazis and the problem with that is that they're fucking nazis.

I'm gonna shit in yer mouth, duolingo!

"I hope you're next"

Scratch a liberal.

Translating a code base between languages has always been a super easy, quick, fun experience for me. It's like a simple exercise with clear right & wrong answers, a nice break from most coding tasks. Whenever I've done it I've felt like, "oh god, here goes the next week", and then it's done in a couple of hours max and nothing was stressful, and I feel great.

Sorry, machines can't have that job. I do it better anyway.

And anytime I see anyone advocating this crap it's always because it gets the job done "faster", and like, the rule is: "fast; cheap; good; pick two", and this doesn't break that rule.

Yeah, they get it done super fast, and super shitty. I'm yet to see anyone explain how an LLM gets the job done better, not even the most rabid apologists.

LLMs have zero fidelity, and information without fidelity is just noise. It is not good at doing information work. In fact, I don't see how you get information with fidelity without a person in the loop, like on a fundamental, philosophical level I don't think it's possible. Fidelity requires truth, which requires meaning, and I don't think you get a machine that understands meaning without AGI.

Wait, open world, specific upgrades needed to access new areas and progress the story... I think Subnautica is a secret metroidvania. It's just most of the upgrades are "you can go deeper now".

Fundamentally they both come from anarchist ways of thinking. If there is no higher order or rule, and nobody has any veto power over anyone else, then the only thing left is to manage each relationship on an equal footing.

Poly for me is about the basic idea that nobody gets veto power over anybody else's relationship, which means exclusivity simply doesn't happen. It's just like if you had a friend that said you weren't allowed to have other friends. That would be weird, and there's no real reason why romantic relationships should be any different.

I don't know if they understand that their close association with Trump & Musk made the classification extremely easy, politically.

They are historically unpopular and they are dragging all their allies down with them.

I don't think a comment stating that you don't think a comment asking for a source is very interesting conversation is very interesting conversation, yet here we are.