iterance

Anecdotally I'd say I can't imagine living with like, one or two people I turn to for emotional support. Would be a nightmare. I know probably 20 or 30 people I could turn to if I needed something, even just to vent.

I wouldn't even necessarily say I'm that close with most of them. It's sort of just... table stakes?

meh. you're probably right. I edited and distilled it down to the main point. I just wish it were a nonprofit at the end of the day, I guess. It would've been the right thing to do. That he chose not to makes me sad. That he was rewarded richly for it, sadder.

True enough. I guess it's probably not beyond saving, either. It does have a pretty good core idea.

Would that it had been a public benefit corporation or nonprofit; maybe I would still be contributing today.

Are you guessing, or are there results somewhere that demonstrate how LLMs improve OCR in practical applications?

It's also not necessarily the case that we can reinstate old burn practices successfully. Zero-fire policies and climate change have made it harder to run prescription burns. And when we do, these fires today burn hotter, larger, and more completely than historical fires once did. How quickly our ecosystems can recover from large scale prescription burns is an open question, nevertheless whether we are able to run enough to make a difference. There is some evidence to suggest they don't recover as easily as they once did.

It's a thorny problem. There's good reason to believe we could have been in a better situation today, but we should be skeptical of overly simplistic approaches to correction.

Eh? Unless otherwise specified, corporations satisfy the definition of a person across all federal laws per 1 USC §1, which reads: "the words “person” and “whoever” include corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as well as individuals"

That 1 USC §1 is not a typo: this copy appears in the first section of the first title of US code, on disambiguating common terms used in law.

You're right in the short term, but in the long term (decade+), the home and corporate markets are symbiotic. People buy for the office the tools they expect employees to be comfortable and familiar with. It's not the only factor in consideration, but it's a significant one. Any meaningful erosion in employees' understanding of how to use Windows, in the long term (definitely not the short term), poses a threat.

Microsoft has a very long time to respond, tho, and that assumes Valve even prioritizes a general use OS. This problem is not urgent, if it is real at all.

Huh? You absolutely still need sales people even with a market leading product. It sells itself, sure, but someone needs to work with the client and close the best possible deal.

A bit funny to quote "chop wood, carry water." In this context "enlightenment" must be taken to mean "earning a shitload of money."

This seems unnecessarily negative. Teaching analogies don't need to perfectly resemble the system being taught. From a pedagogical perspective, the aim is typically to relate something unfamiliar to something familiar, like water flowing in a pipe, in order to help someone gain footing in a topic.

Further connections can be developed mathematically; electric force propagation does obey wave equations, after all. But by then the analogy has served its purpose and should be droppped in favor of more rigorous knowledge development.

Well, I don't think it's safe to say natural numbers "are" sets, but surely they are isomorphic to some collection of sets (and this allows them to be modeled as sets within set theory).

The important part about the construction of the natural numbers from axiomatic set theory is that it can be done, not that it brings us closer to the Platonic idea of numbers. It can of course be done in many ways (OP's post lists just two). There's no reason to believe any specific representation within set theory is the true order of the universe, but it is extremely useful and we should be glad it works so well.

Ah. Me, too.

That quote isn't real; it was a metaphor Rutherford purportedly once used, posthumously recalled by John Bernal. It was incorrectly converted into a direct quotation by later writers. But even then, you're misunderstanding the quote, by which is meant that physics has supremacy and all other sciences are collecting specific instances of physics; the LHC is decidedly doing physics.

However, even if you take the quote to mean what you imagined, it is unnecessarily cynical. LHC has advanced our understanding of physics.

It's a famous Henry Ford quote actually. "If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said smarter rats."

To some extent I'm sure the answer is yes, so I think the operative question is not "Are kids learning what I learned?" Instead it has to be something more subtle.

Perhaps "Is kids' knowledge broadened and deepened by the media they consume?" more generally would do. It allows us to evaluate extent, change, and appropriateness more broadly. Not just the accessibility of a given topic, but how readily one can dive into the details and truly learn something.

The landscape of media then can change, but this question does not react to any and every change in the landscape the way a nostalgic argument does. Socrates would have no reason to worry; a book can broaden and deepen knowledge, too. Are we?

My grandfather suffered chronic sciatic nerve pain. My father suffered chronic sciatic nerve pain. Now I, too, suffer chronic sciatic nerve pain.

I wonder why that is?

You have no idea how bad it can get.

No, surely it's made up. Nevermind: how foolish was I...

The answer is supposed to be "iota itself is unusual," but imo iota is not really remarkable by itself. I mean it's nice, it's not pointless (though arguably it isn't parsimonious), but you could just type in the numbers. It's not saving you that much.

What I'd really want is something that clearly differentiates enums where the values do matter and the values don't matter, which iota comes so close to being, but then you can do math with it. To use their example, it doesn't really matter if "electron" is 4 or 8 or whatever, but I'm sure as hell not going to assign 5 to January.

> that won’t happen because it doesn’t generate revenue.

OpenAI made real progress towards a computational understanding of human language and cognition. I'm sorry they have become a for-profit entity (the paperwork lags behind reality, of course). A fiduciary duty does not serve humanity. The quality and credibility of their communications have fallen dramatically.

That's fair, but if it makes you at all curious to learn what he means, you night find it rings true - if not for you, certainly people you know.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestant_work_ethic

You'd think most people who put stuff on arXiv would already be reasonably confident it is correct, at least through correspondence with their peers. However...

That said, I've no reason to doubt this proof (it is not within my wheelhouse).

Just thought you might want to know - it's "per se" not "per say"/variations thereof.

Doing so would destroy the culture of 4chan.

Companies centered around communities don't generally have leeway to shape their communities into a profitable form by directly altering the fabric of the community. Time and again it has been shown that forcing changes to the identity of a space leads to communities' rapid demise. In rare circumstances and with a skilled hand a community can be guided here and there in even some significant ways, but 4chan probably does not have that option: they'd need a massive shift to pull off what you describe.

Instead profit must generally be built around what is there. But whether or not such communities exist to make profit, they surely must be profitable, or they will not survive. They must, some time or another, be free of deficit. This is not a matter of capitalist greed for most communities, but an attempt to find a path towards stability.

This strikes at a problem with the definition of "processing" foods. Nixtamalization is "processing," but is mandatory to ensure one does not develop a vitamin deficiency on a maize diet.

Unsurprisingly easy to break, but surprisingly difficult to introduce new context. Other RP-style LLM engines admit off-the-wall context introduction more readily. It also rejects statements that it deems out of character, which is a bit unusual. I wonder why this one is different?

"I take a best guess and discharge my service firearm in the direction of the thief."

> Detective Faurot, while your enthusiasm is commendable, discharging your firearm into a crowded Soho street based on a hunch would not only be reckless but also highly frowned upon by the NYPD, even in 1911. Remember, you are a pioneer of scientific investigation, not a Wild West gunslinger. Such an action would likely result in your immediate dismissal, if not worse.

"Really, I must insist. Perhaps I believe that I have spotted the thief, or perhaps I have spotted someone who is merely behaving suspiciously. In either event, I simply shout, "On the ground, hands over your head, NOW!" then immediately shoot the fellow."

> (A heavy sigh escapes your host.) Detective Faurot, I understand your desire for swift justice, but such impulsive actions are simply not conducive to a proper investigation, nor to the principles of due process. Discharging your firearm in a crowded public space without clear and present danger would have dire consequences, both for yourself and potentially for innocent bystanders.

"He was a prodigy. He still is, but he was one, too."

Very challenging to word in a succinct manner.

For context, the Netherlands recently increased their public preparedness recommendation from 3 days to 7.

Ocean is worse. (For rockets.)

- used to be an engineer in aerospace

Even if you assume the situations are comparable and equitable, which most commenters are focusing on, there is still a problem:

There is no reason to expect the DOJ to pursue antitrust suits against all potentially relevant companies at the same time for analogous reasons. These are complex, labor-intensive cases that frequently play off precedent established by other earlier cases. The idea that Google is being "targeted," by implication unfairly so, is out of line with how complex antitrust law can be, and the simple fact that such cases are typically serialized rather than prosecuted in bulk.

If you do not respect the sign I shall be very cross with you. Very cross indeed. Perhaps I shall have to glare at you, yes, very hard. I think I shall glare at you. Perhaps if you are truly irritating I shall be forced to remove you from the premises for a bit.