absolutelastone

I thought those smart people were the ones saying our military supply chain is dependent on China.

This outcome is probably the end result for either scenario. The degree to which China is dependent on the US has been steadily decreasing. There's no law of nature that says the US will keep winning and have its advantages forever.

I don't know that the prior situation was sustainable and would have lasted much longer anyway. Using China for manufacturing is like using Amazon for sales. You are required to give them everything they need to take your business away.

Last time I visited a Chinese factory (which was before covid) it was heavily automated without much staff. They also did have a few foreign laborers who didn't speak the local language, ironically.

I visited a US factory more recently,o and it was all about A.I., automation, and engineers (who maintained and operated the robots). Availability of cheap unskilled labor was not a relevant factor in the business.

The income from the book is scaling by its number of customers, versus roughly one person at a time who can enjoy the chair. It incentivizes finding ways to entertain more people with your effort.

I'd argue we evolved to think rationally in order to specifically advance our instinctive drives, rather than the "Triume brain" view of the neocortex and lizard brain fighting for dominance. Immediate and extreme danger enforces a realistic and calculating view of reality, when otherwise people tend to avoid thinking about or dealing with a danger.

Courage is the ability to choose an alternative besides first choice of fear. But it isn't necessarily rational either, more likely a different instinctive motivation winning out. A completely emotionless person, meanwhile, would probably be completely nonfunctional.

"Any evidence" is a low bar. Obviously there's evidence of many kinds. The point here regarding common sense is the evidence of human nature when it comes to lopsided risks versus rewards, and widespread knowledge of this imbalance. Legally proving fraud is obviously difficult in a world where there is almost no paperwork to go on (save what the applicant chooses to provide), and hardly worth the effort when the government can just stop investigating when it looks doubtful and reject the application for the same practical result. In the US most applicants are rejected and aside from obviously-suspicious ones who skip their hearing, the most common reason is literally that their fear isn't found to be credible. Also, a person who has multiple motivations but only lists the ones that would benefit them has lied by omission.

Funny how you don't often hear this kind of argument made for estimating the prevalence of tax fraud. And there the risk vs reward calculation is much worse. I would trust more common sense arguments. People who respond to economic incentives are economically motivated.

Indeed fraud certainly is lying. And sure they might also be rejected for other reasons like being a convicted criminal. In the US we also have "willful misrepresentation", which I will count with fraud informally. But my comment, again, specified economic migrants. They know they are economic migrants. The fraud is to claim otherwise on one's application in the name of "hoping optimistically" that this other story will suffice. It sure is hard to maintain focus on this point.

#3 can be true and yet not be enough to make your case. Many failed technologies achieved impressive engineering milestones. Even the harshest critic could probably brainstorm some niche applications for a hallucination machine or whatever.

Taking words out of context generally never forms the basis of a good argument. For example here you cropped out the commission of immigration fraud, which leads me to doubt you accurately answered my question. In the US at least, such behavior can lead to punishments well beyond denial of the application. Are you saying in Europe it is fair play? Either way of course the point relevant to the thread is whether people are justifiable in viewing such applicants as illegal vs legal.

Is an asylum seeker really legal if their claim is a stretch and they are in fact just an economic migrant? Seems like an arguable category that should be treated separately. Though I agree there appear to be plenty of people in Europe who want to restrict legal immigration too. Is this taboo there now too?

This is fine-tuning to make a well-behaved chatbot or something. To make a LLM you just need to predict the next token, or any masked token. Conceptually if you had a vast enough high-quality dataset and large-enough model, you wouldn't need fine-tuning for this.

A model which predicts one token at a time can represent anything a model that does a full sequence at a time can. It "knows" what it will output in the future because it is just a probability distribution to begin with. It already knows everything it will ever output to any prompt, in a sense.

Well there are some people who think they know. I personally agree with the above poster that such people are probably wrong.

"four out of five" has the same number of syllables as "80%". "Three out of four" has even fewer syllables than 75%, for that matter. So I can see why those stuck around. Meanwhile "one out of two" is wordier than just "half". Are you saying British people still use it in such an inefficient case anyway?

Seems to me salaried workers would be a category that is more conscientious by self-selection. They are comfortable working within the rules of a system and less willing to take risks such as by violating those rules.

Well that red flag versus the immediately-preceding passage listing a Doctor of Medicine degree at Stanford Medical School.

I looked into one of the links and apparently she pushes fairly mainstream preventive medicine stuff, diet, exercise, and screening tests. The only questionable thing I saw was the continuous glucose monitoring thing which the jury may still be out on when it comes to non-diabetics.

I suspect the lucrative patent system has helped create rather exorbitant costs and restrictions for performing trials, which hinders non-patentable research, ironically.

But both the federal and state govts do fund tons of such research. Some states have specific Alzheimer's trials and funds. I would think they could handle dirt-cheap therapies like this without getting into sweeping political changes. Though I suspect the solution is much harder than just run a trial with the drugs we have, or else we would already be hearing about mountains of evidence from doctors using the medications off-label.

This article is all the supporting evidence without any of the setbacks and failures at reproducing the correlations. There have been attempts at showing benefits with antivirals before. Just not a full-on double-blind study apparently. I recall reading about a study with high doses that showed no benefit for people in early stages.

The 7 years time duration probably comes from the size of the study and also how long it is believed to take to get benefit if there is one. I would think if it really worked they would have stopped early for ethics reasons because they should also give the treatment to the placebo arm rather than watch them decline while knowing how to prevent it.

It happens every day. The job description of an engineer is basically to apply their knowledge of fundamentals to design and improve products, not simply copy the existing products. Products in every field must incrementally and monotonically improve in some way in order to compete. It is often not even science at all, just development.

The useful distinction is between speculators and homeowners. The distinction between private equity and individual speculators is not so useful. The latter also collude and vote in their investment interest.

Personally I think what has been happening globally is that members of governments have been learning collectively how to manipulate the housing market. It seems like a win-win situation that makes (almost) everyone happy. Except of course for renters. They will push on whatever levers they have until it breaks again.

Perhaps this time will be special, given so much government protection (i.e., market manipulation to maintain house prices).

But investors at the current scale includes vast numbers of individuals' personal wealth and retirement accounts. I'd expect them to jump out well before they personally reach insolvency if fear ever overtakes greed.

Observability means it can in principle be measured, not whether it is practical. And we can observe all the way down to the individual level where effects happen (prices), individuals set interest rates, etc. Aggregation is also in the intuitive column. At worst you could argue this reguires a subsequent step of logic, which I accounted for since humans do by design.

Thermodynamics is easy. I did it as a sophomore. It can be derives using statistical mechanics from classical mechanics but this is not necessary. The ideas of heat itself and its flow are ancient.

Speaking of cognitive biases, pointing out examples of errors does not provide a proof that something is worse than some unnamed alternative. Unless your argument is that we are worse at something that an omniscient and perfect version of humans. And if you go all the way back to my very first statement, I said common sense always works to some degree. I didn't say the predictions would be perfect. You are making the much-harder-to-defend argument that it disappears from value via some magical statistics effect you haven't identified.

No by "common sense based on logic" I mean common ground between both. To exclude gut feelings or emotion or whatever. And I'm sure logical thinking ability is also hardwired by evolution.

Realms where our senses do not operate would be microscopic or relativistic and the like where which we have never been able to observe before. National economies are completely observable and accessible to our logic and common sense. They are akin to thermodynamics which is not counterintuitive at all.

You are arguing by example and I am countering with larger classes of examples. For someone who gives up so quick on picking winners in macroeconomics theories you sure are sure of your answer here despite any quantitative basis for your claims.

I think people tend to just not understand what autoregressive methods are capable of doing generally (i.e., basically anything an alternative method can do), and worse they sort of mentally view it as equivalent to a context length of 1.

I said common sense "based on logic" specifically to sidestep this popular argument about the evils of common sense. Such common sense includes statements like "if something can't go on forever it won't". I guess you disagree with this statement?

But no I don't agree with your claim. Common sense is an excellent guide and a major reason why evolution gave us large brains. And that includes the hard sciences, only failing in very specialized niches that often took centuries to find after almost everything else was well-explained by intuitive theories. Biology is not a hard science.

It also depends on the weather where you live. Unless you don't mind clothes that smell funny.

In Japan they don't commonly use dryers and mostly hang dry everything (except maybe Okinawa where I guess it's too tropical). But their bathrooms as set up to operate as a big dryer. You dry both your clothes and the bathroom itself.

How about "commonsense" instead?

Everything in macroeconomics is a belief, because it is clearly far from a hard science.

Common sense always applies to some degree when it is based on logic. Also my belief is that a system where there is no limits on government spending and debt seems obviously unstable and likely to become infinitely corrupt.

I meant "cheap" because it is easy to make from scratch.

https://www.google.com/search?q=how+do+I++make+tofu+from+scr...

As for "other fermented foods" your final sentence admits it works as used in my post.

Text is a fairly imprecise form of communication. It's pretty common for multiple people to get triggered by misreading a post the same way if such a misread is possible.

In other cases downvoted posts are often the most interesting precisely because they trigger people with points they don't want to consider. I certainly wouldn't cite it as proof of any position.