sushibowl @ sushibowl @feddit.nl

Posts

0

Comments

327

Joined

2 yr. ago

It really is as simple as blending rolled oats and water in a 1:4-ish ratio for 30 seconds or so, and straining the result twice. Adding sugar is optional. It stores pretty well in the fridge, maybe up to 5 days. Trust your nose!

Personally I don't make it very often, as my main use for milk is in cappuccino, and plain oat milk doesn't steam very well. The barista editions you can buy have some added extras (fat, sugar, proteins, stabilisers) to improve the characteristics for steaming.

I totally understand the convenience factor of store-bought too. If you don't have a blender on standby it's a bit of a hassle. And the store bought stuff is shelf-stable for weeks when sealed.

There's a couple reasons behind this:

• Economies of scale. Oatmilk is not nearly as big of a market and therefore tends to be more expensive per gallon
• Dairy subsidies. Dairy farmers can be pretty heavily subsidized, depending on the country, making the milk artificially cheap
• Marketing. Oatmilk is mostly consumed by upper middle class (sub)urban folks who have enough disposable income to worry about things like animal welfare and the environment, and thus are willing to pay a premium for eco-friendly products. Companies know this so a lot of oatmilk is positioned and priced as a premium product.

In a way it's sort of disgusting that capitalism is exploiting your desire to save the planet for extra profits, however that's how it is generally designed to operate: nothing happens unless there is a profit to be made from it.

but is this prompt the entirety of what differentiates it from other GPT-4 LLMs?

Yes. Probably 90% of AI implementations based on GPT use this technique.

you can really have a product that's just someone else's extremely complicated product but you staple some shit to the front of every prompt?

Oh yeah. In fact that is what OpenAI wants, it's their whole business model: they get paid by gab for every conversation people have with this thing.

They know perfectly well, what's going on, they just have different priotities. It so happens the state of Israel is important to advance US geopolitical interests in the region. And so that's that.

Written on 1 April 1998. definitely a joke, though it does work.

It's generally accepted wisdom that the American government is bad at doing anything at all and therefore should suck as much corporate dick as possible to get the corporations to do things instead. A flawless system to be sure.

“You want to know what this [war on drugs] was really all about? The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I’m saying?

We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news.

Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did.”

~ John Ehrlichman, Assistant to the President for Domestic Affairs under President Richard Nixon

Indeed, I could have worded that a bit better. But I think we agree on the fundamental points.

I think for these types of discussions it's really necessary to clearly define what "low level" really means, something both you and the author kinda skip over. I think a reasonable definition is about the amount of layers of abstraction between the language's model of the machine and the actual hardware.

The author is correct that nowadays, on lots of hardware, there are considerably more abstractions in place and the C abstract machine does not accurately represent high performance modern consumer processors. So the language is not as low level as it was before. At the same time, many languages exist that are still way higher level than C is.

I'd say C is still in the same place on the abstraction ladder it's always been, but the floor is deeper nowadays (and the top probably higher as well).

It's not impossible, although the loudness wars are pretty much over nowadays. All major music services and players have volume normalisation, many by default, so there's not much point to it any longer.

Also it's pretty tough to find a decades old record still in mint condition, and the sound quality of vinyl gets worse every time you play it.

So is Uber, since this year. My point is, all of these companies ran hundreds of millions of dollars in the red for years before turning a profit.

Before they went public, who was foolish enough to invest in a company that has never turned a profit?

You'd be surprised. The basic strategy of losing money hand over fist for years to grow yourself to as large a user base as possible, before finally aggressively monetizing that user base, is well established in silicon valley. Investors would not even raise an eyebrow at the loss numbers posted by Reddit because of how exceedingly common that is.

And it has worked several times, making some people ridiculously wealthy. Good examples are Amazon, Facebook, and Uber. So usually companies on this level have raised hundreds of millions to sometimes billions of dollars in investment capital, allowing them to operate at these levels of losses for years at a time.

Because you're exchanging stock worth $193 million for an equivalent amount of dollars, there's technically no profit or loss involved in the transaction. In the same manner, when paying stock as a compensation, you secure services valued at $193 million for an amount of shares worth the same: the transaction is entirely equal. So you don't make or lose any money by paying in stock.

Of course, the trick is that the value of the CEO's work for one year can be whatever he says. If your claim is that they could have gotten more value out of the stock had they sold it in the IPO, I think you are absolutely correct in that regard.

Some mighty editorialising in the title of this post here, and it seems a bunch of people are happy to comment without reading the post at all.

People just love shitting on Reddit but in terms of post and comment quality, Lemmy is exactly the same.

His logic? The part about rich people being smarter than poor people does not appear in the comment this post links to. It is entirely editorialising of the title by the person posting.

The comment is only clarifying the content of Reddit CEO's compensation package, as many people seem to think he received cash only.

Does that not mean that reddit would have made a 113 Million profit before his $193 million compensation package?

No. His normal salary is around 300k a year. This $193 million figure was the presumed valuation of a stock/options package he received ahead of the IPO. It doesn't cost the company anything to pay him in stock, so it doesn't affect the profit/loss calculation.

It's much more efficient in this case to do a bi-elliptic transfer: raise apoapsis very far out, then lower your periapsis once you are at apoapsis. Wikipedia says you could do it with about 8.8 km/s delta v. Versus 24 or so for a basic Hohman transfer (still a bit better than 30)

Sadly the bi-elliptic transfer requires two burns so you can't do it with a kick.

The general argument for getting rid of minimum wage is that there is a whole bunch of work out there which is simply not valuable enough to be profitable if the labour must be paid at minimum wage prices, and so those jobs simply aren't available right now.

The trade-off is that it guarantees laborers are able to afford a basic life with their jobs, which greatly reduces the ability of capitalists to prey on the working class. However with UBI that problem isn't so big anymore, so there's theoretically no need for a minimum wage.

As the old saying goes, any old idiot can make a house that doesn't fall over. It takes an engineer to make a house that just barely doesn't fall over.

The result is that you buy either Honey or Syrup, you know what you get, and you get what you pay for.

You would think so, but the EU did an investigation back in 2022 and found that almost half of all honey imported into the EU is (illegally) blended with sugar syrup. If you're buying honey labeled as a blend of EU and non-EU honey (which is almost all honey available on supermarket shelves) there's a large chance you're buying a sugar blend.

Current officially sanctioned honey tests are not capable of detecting fake honey. New testing methodology has been agreed upon as a result, but it will take a few years until those are internationally recognised.

If you want to be certain that what you're buying is real honey, the only real option is to buy directly from a local producer.