byteknight

Dex does not need an underlying OS. Your conflating features. Dex simply requires a monitor. No computer.

Dex does not need an underlying OS. Your conflating features. Dex simply requires a monitor. No computer.

I wonder if fighting with the CPU for allocation would be a bottleneck. Seems to me the only way to dedicate full bandwidth would be to have a separate PCI-e (as theyve done)

Now we can add me to the list of confused.

> ... when it has succeeded in giving us an infinite digit sequence for the output real number.

How can it actually ever succeed then? Infinity never ends.

This reminds me of when my grandpa told me the clicking we hear when we turn on a turn signal is from the old days when a cover used to visibly/audible "click"/close over the light, mimicking a blinking effect.

Same with the rockset acquisition earlier this week. Buying spree for sure.

You seem to have explained in much more technical terms than what my "Computer-engineering-without-maths" brain tells me.

To me this sounds very similar to lowering temperature. It doesn't sound like it pulls better from grounded-truth but rather more probabilistic in the vector space. Does this jive?

Isn't evaluating against different effective "experts" within the model effectively what MoE [1] does?

> Mixture of experts (MoE) is a machine learning technique where multiple expert networks (learners) are used to divide a problem space into homogeneous regions.[1] It differs from ensemble techniques in that for MoE, typically only one or a few expert models are run for each input, whereas in ensemble techniques, all models are run on every input.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mixture_of_experts

They also weren't selling the usage of the cards.

MIDDLE OUT!

It refers to the process of taking noise and "diffusing" it until visually appealing

Implement a cloudflare cache infront?

It kinda does that but one token at a time.

This is a horrible comparison. Browsing history doesnt show the contents of the page. It doesnt show you what you were doing on that page. It doesn't reveal anything other than you went there and maybe how long.

The process you describe is referred to as diffusion

Good ol' bobby tables at it again.

Archivebox with its multi-method backups. Screenshots, text, html, etc.

Gluecannon is a script that orchestrates the deployment and configuration of multiple gluetun VPN containers and a single HAProxy container that acts as a proxy for the VPN containers. It allows you to easily manage and scale your VPN setup using Docker Compose.

TreeSize is far better IMHO

Firstly, thank you.

> For example, calling "how long do mice swim before giving up if you chuck them into a tank of water" is roughly equated to "amount of depression" (this is oversimplified a bit; you correlate a bunch of those measures etc. but still a lot of very weak signals).

Do I understand this? A purely reductionist view of my understanding: this is quantified as "the amount of will to live"? If my understanding is proper, how do you measure this without killing people? I grok that it is an extreme example, I am attempting to glean applicability of such an experiment to humans.

> And even the human black-box stuff in the DSM manuals admits a lot of different subtypes, lots of different and sometimes opposite symptom clusters, etc. It is entirely possible that mechanistically "depression" is a diverse group of mechanisms all boxed up into the most familiar mainstream concept/word.

Totally unrelated, but wife is an LCSW and I've glanced at the DSM. I've become convinced that book is near entirely for insurance purposes, similar to the ICD-10.

ICD-10: W220.2XD: Walked into lamppost, subsequent encounter.

Processing and sending are two separate unrelated things. You can process entirely on device and still send the base data or results. Both things can be true at the same time.

I too would like a fully made library that does what I want it to do. But thats not the case when you're writing it.

Someone with a better grasp of the scientific method perhaps you can answer this.

I am under the impression we (science) hasn't definitively determined causation for depression. How can you definitively determine a link without knowing the underlying causes. It would imply you know how it works, doesn't it?

That's building upon current knowledge. That is a different application.

Exactly. You can't reason with that you do not currently posses.

You can't always do both to the fullest truth. They often conflict. To do what you suggest, would imply my feelings perfectly align with the sympathetic view. That is not the case for a lot of humans or instances. If I am not saying exactly how I feel it is watered down.

And telling me "just do both" is enforcing your world view and that is precisely what we're talking about _not_ doing.

I disagree with this. That suggests that thinking requires persistent, malleable and non-static memory. That is not the case. You can reasonably reason about without increasing knowledge if you have a base set of logic.

I think the thing you were looking for was more along the lines of a persistent autonomous agent.

This reminds me of how people often communicate to avoid offending others. We tend to soften our opinions or suggestions with phrases like "What if you looked at it this way?" or "You know what I'd do in those situations." By doing this, we subtly dilute the exact emotion or truth we're trying to convey. If we modify our words enough, we might end up with a statement that's completely untruthful. This is similar to how AI models might behave when manipulated to emphasize certain features, leading to responses that are not entirely genuine.

That would be opposite

Just because you don't think its strange doesn't mean others don't. Strange is subjective. If he feels its odd we willfully ignore it, then its strange.