explaininjs

Upon reflection, it’s interesting that you leapt to describing my “flaw” as a burning desire to identify a “flaw”, when of course I did no such thing. But you did. That’s a common trope amongst evolutionists: “when I make unfounded assumptions based on my belief about X, it’s correct; when you do, it’s a flaw”. Of course you think it’s correct – it was your assumption in the first place! Enlightenment comes when you can count your assumptions.

No… it’s simply the worldview opposite creationism. Any assertions of feelings of superiority are very certainly projections. It’s interesting that my entire argument in this thread has been equivalence, but people want to interpret it as some sort of superiority thing.

See the rest of the thread for people who understand the basic concept of debate. It’s not my job to make that persons argument for them.

1. I mean axioms we take as fact when establishing a world view.

2. It can’t be proven that they are time invariant, that’s what you take on belief.

3. That’s not what I’m referring to. I’m referring to the laws themselves suddenly changing, not the state of a given particle suddenly changing.

If you don’t understand point 3 there’s not much more to say. If you did you’d understand a lot of the other things you don’t at the moment, for instance what it might mean for a function to be differentiable but not constant. Contrast G changing over spacetime as can be described by a differentiable function vs a constant vs stepwise at the will of the creator.

You clearly missed the paragraph where I very explicitly talked about the time variant differentiable middle ground? That’s surprising, it’s the majority of the content.

Regardless, I’m not talking about functions describing the universal state, I’m talking one layer up from that, those that describe how that state changes, including any instantaneous events. Does the cat instantaneously die at any given second with the same probability, or does something intervene in the one second it does that did not exist in any of the others?

I don’t consider a belief in evolutionism a flaw any more than I consider belief in creationism a flaw. All I have said is that evolutionists match the GP’s description of being unwilling to consider what assumptions they are making, “hitting the wall”, so to speak. (as this thread has demonstrated, as I knew it would)

Parts are, parts aren’t. If you aren’t able to specify exactly what you believe with regard to it, there’s not much more to say.

No, “evolutionism” is actually the most correct characterization. The quip about scientology was meant to caricaturise the belief more than anything. Your claims 1 and 2 are both incorrect.

Creationists and Evolutionists can both agree that scientific process creates good results and is a generally well-reasoned approach to learning about the current state of the universe and making predictions for the future. Where they disagree is the extent to which this is true, especially as it relates to the ability of those predictions to track reality going forward and backward in time, but that’s more covered in a sibling comment.

The worldview characterized by an axiomatic belief in the time invariance of physical laws. It is contrasted by creationism, which posits non-differentiable physical behaviors.

There’s a middle ground of accepting the possibility of differentiable but non-constant mechanisms that should technically be owned by the evolutionists, but this is a rarely embraced territory: you get neither the warm fuzzies of belief in a God who specially designed you, nor the cool satisfaction of a belief in making observations about the universe now and scaling/time-inverting them to speak confidently about the distant past and future.

What’d be really great is a codegen aspect. A non-negligible part of any data munching operation is “this input object has fields X, Y, Z and we need an output object with fields X, f(X), Y, f(Y,Z)”. This is something and LLM has a decent chance at being really quite good at.

Watch out with the array mode though, according to OpenAI docs it technically can return the results in any order and you must sort them by index to be sure you have the right associations. I’ve never seen them out of order in practice, but it’d be entirely in-character for them to suddenly change that sporadically and without warning, and now your entire vectordb may or may not be nondeterministically ruined.

You mean the question? Everyone should be able to see the answer of the active clue.

I wouldn’t call my case a horror story. This is still a million times better than how it was, and I’d absolutely go back do it again.

In fact I am considering getting a “tune up” round, but it’s a lot of money and leaves your eyes out of operation for quite a while. Alternatively, I might get astigmatism glasses that I wear exclusively in places I need to see well in low light, for instance movie theater credits are always a challenge (which would be a non-issue if my GF didn’t make us sit through all the credits to every movie we see…)

There’s nothing quite like the quality of life delta that comes from waking up every morning and simply being able to see.

Oh, and with periods of concerted effort I’ve been able to temporarily remove the astigmatism entirely, by basically training my eyes how to focus. There’s a good chance continuing to do that more frequently would give me a permanent fix too.

I’ve had astigmatism ever since a laser eye surgery. It’s unnoticeable 95% of the time, but every site that forces dark mode on me makes it immediately obvious. I immediately find a light switch or leave.

Initially, sure. But the incentives of everyone involved are aligned to make the organization tend to grow in budget and scope bounded only by the public’s willingness to pay for it. The more they can convince the public to pay, the more money there is to go around. Fear happens to be a great motivation to this effect, and unscrupulous bureaucrats have been quick to find every opportunity to jump on that.

Not at all. It means Colorado DPHE has performed a test and concluded the subject requires further testing by the CDC before any diagnosis can be made.

These are well documented established protocols created by domain expert scientists folks, let’s not completely ignore them for the purposes of FUD.

Their funding is very directly tied to how big of a deal people consider the issues they’re tasked with to be. You ever see a government bureaucrat argue “the mission my agency handles is really easy and not very important, we could make do with a much smaller budget without any downside for the people”?

Nobody has tested positive since the 2 from 2022. The three counted in this article are what’s known as “presumptive positive”, which is a different term reserved for those who have not tested positive.

It’s just another scare tactic, one which saw heavy exploitation in the COVID era. I personally tested presumptive positive once: they treated me as though the test was positive and prohibited me from receiving medical care. In fact it was explicitly not positive, I never experienced any symptoms, and they relented and let me recover the procedure some number of weeks later – with no change in testing.

edit: I neither made nor recanted any claims as to the positivity of the other 48 in my first comment, I do not know why you are asserting I edited claims out.

That’s the people who had any symptoms of anything at all who were in the test set. Only three of them tested positive, for a grand total of 5 cases since May 2022. Yellow journalism at its finest.

No, that’s what a second place is. A third place is for socialization, a second place is for work. Just because you’re relying on some independent small business owner to pay rent for your desk while you prevent other customers from patronizing the establishment and don’t talk to anyone, doesn’t make it a third place.

In LA, every small locally owned coffee shop has become totally overrun with folks buying one latte and proceeding to take a whole table to themselves and their laptops for the next 5 hours.

SAB solves the problem of having a small number of dedicated workers that efficiently handle specific well constrained data processing tasks.

I must question whether the problem of random sites wanting to spin up a whole ton of cores that consume arbitrary amounts of compute and memory really needs to be solved.

Indeed. And there’s a whole Atomics namespace in the standard library for thread safety while using it.

Again, there’s very few actual uses for wasm. The main one is when you have a preexisting library in a different language, other than that you don’t gain any real functionality from using it.

https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Refe...

Why would wasm be needed for build time tools? We already use fast compiled languages for modern webpack replacements (esbuild, swc, Bun :: Go, Rust, Zig), and they don’t use wasm.

This use case is purposefully hamstringed for demo purposes. Rust or Go won’t change anything here, you still need to pass messages to/from the worker. Same exact mechanism as if you used a webworker, which are already widely available.

But to answer your question, yes you can use Rust and Go practically in the browser. It just isn’t all that helpful except in narrow circumstances.

You can just expose the data to all sites with your own extension if you have access to the device.

Because every bottle is clearly labeled “The FDA has not evaluated this for treating any condition”. There are a great many products that the FDA hasn’t evaluated that are still sold, why should these be any different?

I'm talking satisfying business needs not philosophical mumbo jumbo.

If you need a model to move, you give it to a rigger. If the mesh is bad, they will first need to remesh it or the rigging wont work right. This is the problem. They will solve this problem using a manual, labor intensive, process. It's not particularly difficult, any 3D artist considering themselves a professional ought to be able to do it. But it's not the sort of thing where you just press a button and turn some knobs and you're done either. It takes a lot of work, and in particularly bad cases it's easier to just start from scratch - remeshing a garbage mesh is indeed harder than modeling from scratch in many cases. Once either of these mechanisms have been applied, the problem will be solved and the rigger can move on to rigging.

So yes, algorithms exist that pretend to remesh, and every professional modeling systems has one built in (because your sales guys don't want to be the ones without one), but professionals do not use them in production environments (my original claim, if you recall) because their results are so bad. Indeed I'm told several meme accounts exist dedicated to how badly they screw things up when folks do try to take the shortcuts.

If this project was aiming to solve the problem (which is possible, as I have just explained), they would not have given up 5 years ago. Because it sure isn't solved now.

This is incorrect.

> Given a text prompt provided by the user, Stage I creates […] a 3D mesh.

If the claim was that the problem was solved, sure it might make sense that the package does not need to be touched (in reality the field isn’t as slow as you presume, but I digress).

Instead, the claim is that it’s “nearly^{TM}” solved, so the proof being an abandoned repo from half a decade ago actually speaks volumes: it’s solved except for the hard part, and nobody knows how to solve the hard part.