lukewarm_ozone @ lukewarm_ozone @lemmy.today

Posts

0

Comments

95

Joined

7 mo. ago

No, he isn't.

The thing I said I did? Yes; here's the processed image:

If you mean the math in the post, I can't read it in this picture but it's probably just some boring body-of-rotation-related integrals, so basically the same thing as I did but breaking apart the vase's visible shape into analytically simple parts, whereas I got the shape from the image directly.

This roughly checks out. I'm getting 66%, based on the methodology of cutting out the jug's shape from the picture and numerically integrating the filled and empty volume (e.g. if a row is d pixels wide, it contributes d^2 to the volume, either filled or empty depending on whether it's above or below the water level).

Ivermectin is a human antiparasitic too. But more importantly, I'm pretty most of this is just a myth. The stories I've seen about mass ivermectin hospitalizations turned out to be hoaxes, see e.g. here. If you literally took an entire horse-sized dose (200μg/kg for a 700kg horse, so 140mg) as a 60kg human, you'd get a dose of 2.3mg/kg, 11x the recommended amount for infestation - which has been tested in humans to be safe. Ivermectin is amazingly safe for a drug; you have to really try to get an overdose.

So I think a few people (seems to be ~several hundred for all of US in 2021) did somehow manage to actually get themselves poisoned (I'd love to know how; I think I saw a statistic once about what dosages were found in ivermectin poisoning cases but I can't find it in my bookmarks, and the few actual case reports I can find don't provide a dosage), but most of the "horse dewormer" stories in the media were just political propaganda.

(The above isn't getting into the question of whether ivermectin is effective against COVID, though. I think it was reasonable to think so back during the start of the pandemic, since the studies were really quite suggestive, and it was a safe drug to try, and the studies weren't even debunked at the end - rather, it was found that the improvements were most likely due to the drug treating the coincidental parasite infestations the patients had. It's not so reasonable now that we have better studies and real working anti-COVID drugs, and the people who suggest taking ivermectin for COVID nowadays sure are crazies, but I personally would not shame people for doing it back in 2021 or so. Taking one of the only drugs that seemed to be effective against a terrifying pandemic is just a smart thing to do, if it's this safe.)

Quite possibly the enemies have a better idea of the players' hitpoint total than the DM, since they can, like, see how the player characters look, and probably have been tracking the battle much more closely than the DM has.

Security as in cybersecurity, yes. Security as in not getting caught violating government bans, not so much - if you're in a country where getting repressed by your government is a real possibility, it helps a lot for it to not be possible to see exactly what sites you visit. Reminder: even over HTTPS, the domain name (like lemmy.world) is normally not encrypted. Encrypted Client Hello can solve this, but it has only started being commonly used a year ago or so, and more importantly requires the host to support it.

For jobs behind the camera, there are something like, only 13% of women employed in the film industry.

That doesn't necessarily imply sexism at all, note. If it turns out women are just 6 times less likely than men to want to have these jobs, then this percentage would be 13% in a perfect non-sexist world. (Though 13% is concerningly low; the percentage of women that go into computer science is around 20-25% and that's one of the strongest effects. Plausibly the remaining 1.5-2x difference here is due to sexism; I can buy filmmaking being one of the most sexist industries).

I wouldn't generally require people to "compile their findings into a report", but in this case the messages are weirdly devoid of any checkable information and then the reddit user in question mysteriously lost a laptop full of findings, so, yeah, these claims are not compelling. I don't think the reverse engineer in question was lying, per se, but I do think they were very wrong at first by random chance, the story gained traction, and then they were too embarrassed to admit they fucked up.

Note that openai's original whisper models are pretty slow; in my experience the distil-whisper project (via a tool like whisperx) is more than 10x faster.

Really? This is the opposite of my experience with (distil-)whisper - I use it to generate subtitles for stuff like podcasts and was stunned at first by how high-quality the results are. I typically use distil-whisper/distil-large-v3, locally. Was it among the models you tried?

How's musk related to this one?

Sort of true, but the algorithm that Reddit-like platforms use is transparent and simple (it's just based on likes and dislikes, and I think you can even look up the source for the sorting modes) and hence doesn't directly try to feed you content that'd enrage you. I can just not read the posts about Musk and Trump, since I find most takes on the former bad and don't care much about the latter. Meanwhile, on platforms like Twitter or Tiktok you are directly fed content out of some recommendation ML model trained on user engagement.

(There's also subtler differences. For example, on Reddit/Lemmy/etc, if you hate a post you can dislike it, which will generally make it show up less to people. But on, say, Tumblr, not only are there no dislikes, but if you are really hate a post you can only respond to it by reposting it, therefore spreading it further among your followers! That's an absolutely devious platform-design move that could have been invented directly by Satan himself.)

My point is just that nobody really thinks it should be a free for all.

Don't made judgements about everybody based on one guy. I'm on an instance that doesn't defederate lemmygrad or lemmy.ml, so I commonly see utterly insane tankie takes in popular, and of course also in various comments - and yet I don't want those people to not have a platform. Because I trust just about noone to decide whether my opinions should be censored, and if that means also not censoring the opinions of people who I think are very wrong, I'm willing to take that trade.

Yet, people suffering from it can lead happy and fulfilling lives.

Sure, it's possible for a person with a severe disability to grow up happy. But when one is making a decision in real life (like having a child), one should consider an average case, not a exceptional one. And the average case for an example like Down's Syndrome is pretty bad. It is a bit unclear how to quantify the suffering in this particular disease's case because the main harm to the child is lifelong mental impairment and assorted physical disabilities - but it is at least going to inflict suffering on the child's family, since caring for a child with a severe disability for their entire life isn't exactly fun.

It is a slippery slope that, if not navigated carefully, has historically leaded to atrocities.

I don't see the relation. You'll notice that I'm not proposing killing off disabled people for the "improvement of society" or whatever it was that nazis called it. I am not doing this because nonconsensually killing a person is a harm to them. But deciding not to have a child isn't the same thing as murdering a person - it's not harming anyone who exists, and hence may well be morally better than having a child.

(Oh, I suppose you might mean that I'm arguing that there are circumstances in which it's morally bad for a person to have a child, which is similar to nazi eugenics in that I'm deciding whether or not people should have children? In that case, my answer is that the difference is that I'm a person, not an authoritarian government, and I don't have power (nor, indeed, the desire) to force people to obey my personal moral judgements.)

Developers usually make $50-300/hour.

That seems like an overestimate even for US. More importantly, I don't think most open source developers earn this much money (otherwise they wouldn't ask for tiny donations), and hence it's not the relevant figure. If I'm wrong about this, please do tell me - I very much would like to know if the hours I occasionally spend on open-source contributions can instead earn me hundreds of dollars. ;)

Depends - do you have crypto?

I see. No, I don't think I have any specific questions at this point.

carries the implication that the world would be happier were you to just kill off the huge segment of the population who end up on the negative side.

Not necessarily. Someone dying isn't the same as someone not existing at all.* It does imply that the world would be better off if it stopped existing, and under some assumptions implies it'd be moral to, say, instantly end all of humanity. I'm not sure that these conclusions are necessarily "contrary to our instincts".

one reason why this has to be true, is that if we didn't distinguish between those, then if an average life had positive value, it'd be immoral not to have as many children as possible, until the marginal value of an extra life fell to zero once again (kind of like how Malthus thought societies worked, except as a supposedly moral thing to do). That conclusion is something I do consider very contrary to my instincts.

I do tend towards a variant of utilitarianism myself as it has a useful ability to weigh options that are both bad or both good, but for the reason above I tend to define “zero” as a complete lack of happiness/maximum of suffering, and being unhappy as having low happiness rather than negative (making a negative value impossible), though that carries it’s own implications that I know not everyone would agree with.

I too am an utilitarianist, sure. I'm not sure I can possibly buy "maximum suffering and no happiness" being the zero point. I very strongly feel that there are plenty of lives that would be way worse than dying (and than never having existed, too). It's a coherent position I think, just a very alien one to me.

That's literally true, but the simple counterargument is that the happiness/suffering conversion coefficient is a matter of one's values and not particularly up for debate - so there's nothing incoherent about, say, the position that your child living a happy fullfilling life for a thousand years but stubbing their toe once is enough suffering to make their life net negative.

This is a great comment. I'll add that anyone thinking about disability ethics should read Two Arms and a Head, lest they start taking too seriously the idea that disabilities have no effect on quality of life.