Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)B
Posts
9
Comments
743
Joined
3 yr. ago

  • Perilous, eh. Threatening tales of impeding doom and destruction. Who are you actually trying to convince, here. I doubt it's me I'd be flattered but don't think you care enough.

    If Roko's Basilisk is forcing you, blink twice.

  • 3840 * 1600 * 4B / 1024 / 1024 = 23.4375MiB for uncompressed RGBA (four bytes per pixel).

    That is, even if that thing was pure random pixels and would have to be stored uncompressed and you'd use a completely useless alpha channel you still don't hit 25M.

  • dismiss at your own peril.

    Oooo I'm scared. Just as much as I was scared of missing out on crypto or the last 10000 hype trains VCs rode into bankruptcy. I'm both too old and too much of an engineer for that BS especially when the answer to a technical argument, a fucking information-theoretical one on top of that, is "Dude, but consider FOMO".

    That said, I still wish you all the best in your scientific career in applied statistics. Stuff can be interesting and useful aside from AI BS. If OTOH you're in that career path because AI BS and not a love for the maths... let's just say that vacation doesn't help against burnout. Switch tracks, instead, don't do what you want but what you can.

    Or do dive into AGI. But then actually read the paper, and understand why current approaches are nowhere near sufficient. We're not talking about changes in architecture, we're about architectures that change as a function of training and inference, that learn how to learn. Say goodbye to the VC cesspit, get tenure aka a day job, maybe in 50 years there's going to be another sigmoid and you'll have written one of the papers leading up to it because you actually addressed the fucking core problem.

  • But that isn’t to say human intelligence can’t be surpassed by something distinctly inhuman.

    Tell me you haven't read the paper without telling me you haven't read the paper. The paper is about T2 vs. T3 systems, humans are just an example.

  • Most turbo buttons never worked for that purpose, though, they were still way too fast Like, even ignoring other advances such as better IPC (or rather CPI back in those days) you don't get to an 8MHz 8086 by halving the clock speed of a 50MHz 486. You get to 25MHz. And practically all games past that 8086 stuff was written with proper timing code because devs knew perfectly well that they're writing for more than one CPU. Also there's software to do the same job but more precisely and flexibly.

    It probably worked fine for the original PC-AT or something when running PC-XT programs (how would I know our first family box was a 386) but after that it was pointless. Then it hung on for years, then it vanished.

  • He argued for segregation to remain the law of the land when Brown V BoE occurred, but for ‘separate but equal’ to be actually enforced.

    I'm very sure I said nothing about any of that and I'm pretty sure I don't agree with that take. Even if it actually was viable, as in politically possible to have equality while segregation continues, it sounds like ripping of a bandage slowly, very slowly.

  • Nuclear energy is more expensive than renewable so not really, no. Having a good combination of starting materials to minimise the amount of energy you need to fuse everything together, or even starting out with something heavier, would be the way to go.

    For more details ask a nuclear physicist of which I'm not one. Honestly there doesn't seem to be much work on it.

  • We've known how to turn lead into gold for ages, you just add a couple of protons, neutrons, and electrons. Long story short: Uses a fuckton of energy, not worth it.

    Fun fact: When Ernest Rutherford and colleagues put together the first paper about their findings they avoided the word "transmutation" like the plague. It has been considered impossible since before alchemy became chemistry and even though he was publishing in physics chemists would probably still have had his head.

  • From what I understand this is just the recommended feed so it wouldn't affect searching for specific stuff, or binging a channel's backlog.

    And frankly speaking this should be a default feature. All too often the algorithm thinks "oh you watched this one video let me drown you in that shit at the expense of everything else".

    The whole thing meshes well with what we know from child/youth psychology, btw: Agency makes all the difference, whether they're seeking information, or are (in currentyear), doomscrolling it. One tends to involve critical engagement, the other is an osmosis sponge.

    Oh. Speaking of youtube fitness channels, here's a good one. And another one. Like, especially if you haven't done anything in a while, just watch this.

  • Mansplaining isn’t real,

    Not a thing I said.

    but quick sidenote here is how

    That was Eurosplaining. I do that all the time to Yanks and I stand by it.

    And yes MLK was rotating in his grave that day. What's your point, here? That it would befit me to want to see black folks being ineffective in their struggle? Is that really where you want to go with this? Want to continue racistjacketing me?

    And just for the record I already talked about this with actual BLM organisers. They agreed, it was a missed opportunity, hindsight is 20/20, etc. The issue isn't even lack of institutional knowledge -- the civil rights movement is literally the textbook case on how to stage such things effectively -- the "trouble" (not really, but form this perspective) is that the whole movement gained momentum so quickly that people didn't have time to organise properly.

    Co-opting that slogan would have just allowed everyone to brush the conversation under the rug even more quickly than they did.

    Co-opting that slogan would have carried on momentum that was broken by getting into a fight with the slogan. It allowed energy to be diverted from opposing specific state structures to opposing a slogan.

    This isn't about "oh but white racists came up with it so now it's a bad slogan", it's not about dictionary semantics at all that's not how social movements or political messaging works. If Black people shout "All lives matter" then that's saying "Hey we're people too". It's saying "Not just your lives matter". It's also saying "if your schizophrenic kid got shot by out of control police, go come join us": It allows for a broader movement, overall more solidarity.

    You know what's the worst part about this? The right is really good at this kind of stuff. They understand it. They didn't go out saying "Black lives don't matter" or "Fuck N****s", they went out chanting "All lives matter". Because they knew exactly that it was their most effective shot at breaking BLM's momentum, even though they sure as fuck don't care about all lives.

  • They don't keep copies and learning speed? Why one day? Does it count if I skim through a book?

  • it is that they didn’t pay for the books they read, like people are supposed to do legally.

    If I can read a book from a library, why shouldn't OpenAI or anybody else?

    ...but yes from what I've heard they (or whoever, don't remember) actually trained on libgen. OpenAI can be scummy without the general process of feeding AI books you only have read access to being scummy.

  • But one group does it far more often.

    With "one group" you presumably mean egocentric people in general, and nothing sexed. Because otherwise: Citation or you're a sexist. And with "citation" I mean "controlled for perceptive biases".

    Your argument sounds like the “all lives matter” of “black lives matter”.

    Plenty of citations for racial bias by US police so no, it really shouldn't. Side note though: The moment the assclowns came up with "all lives matter" the BLM folks should have jumped on it and used it themselves. It's a much more powerful message, and impossible to argue against. With the momentum they had they could easily have drowned out the racists.

  • So you would rather Ukrainians lay down their weapons and we'll have 20 years of Bucha and Holodomor, again? I somehow doubt you would prefer that to continued warfare, more likely thinking "war is awful" is taking precedence over "not fighting it would be a hell a lot worse". But that's why wars are, by and large, fought: Because people think that not doing it would be worse. Some because they're nuts, some, like Ukrainians, because they're spot-on.

    The only party which can lay down their weapons and not get absolutely kicked in the face for it is Russia. Every minute it continues is on them.

  • It’s about trying to prevent the worst and most horrific actions and outcomes that happen during war.

    No. It's about trying to prevent militarily unnecessary worst and most horrific actions and outcomes.

    White Phosphorus as incendiary rounds,

    Perfectly legal. You can't use them as chemical rounds (they're shit at that anyways), or, as any other incendiary weapons, close to civilians. By far the most common use is as tracer rounds and in smokescreens, though.

  • The allied carpet-bombings of Nazi Germany caused untold suffering, but they were necessary to break the German will to fight.

    Nope. Morale bombing by and large doesn't work and that's why it's illegal now. On the flipside you have German Nazis use that and say "Look at all those allied war crimes" -- but they weren't war crimes at the time. And the Nazis very much started with the bombing campaigns.

    Have a Kraut video.

  • The vast majority of them could simply not have volunteered. Also, you can surrender.

  • Mustard gas is ineffective. That is the actual reason it's outlawed: The opposing force dons gas masks, completely negating the effect, the only stuff that it still kills is collateral damage. That's precisely what happened during WWI: It made everything nastier without actually having an impact on the strategic level.

    There's this notion among many people that the Geneva convention is about preventing cruelty or something, not at all: It's about preventing pointless cruelty. Cruelty that does not actually serve a military objective. War is hell, that's already a given.