kfrzcode

There's literally nothing a "bottom-up" approach will do to effectuate any serious change on the climate. The climate is a dynamic system, and "climate change" is a tautology. At which point, ever, is any "climate" in a static state?

Never, because systems are dynamic, and it's chaotic. Now, if anyone (the State powers and corporate interests) actually WANT to "solve" this "problem," it's, uh, very very clear where to start. Nuclear.

But like many other scissor issues, it will continue to be used as a lever to slice apart groups so's they can fight each other.

When was the last time you asked yourself "What made and or makes me confident in my belief that this is actually a crisis? Why?"

Which papers and statistical analyses have you written? Are you "trusting the science?" Are you versed enough to truly understand how we'd even be able to measure this? Or is it just esoteric enough that it can be used as an engine of disruption, corruption, etc...

The end is (nigh++)!

Keep calm, carry on, adapt.

Slow-moving crises are not crises, they're problems, not emergencies.

----

Here, have some literature, down-voters! ----

[1] Nine long and nearly continuous sea level records were chosen from around the world to explore rates of change in sea level for 1904–2003. These records were found to capture the variability found in a larger number of stations over the last half century studied previously. Extending the sea level record back over the entire century suggests that the high variability in the rates of sea level change observed over the past 20 years were not particularly unusual. The rate of sea level change was found to be larger in the early part of last century (2.03 ± 0.35 mm/yr 1904–1953), in comparison with the latter part (1.45 ± 0.34 mm/yr 1954–2003). The highest decadal rate of rise occurred in the decade centred on 1980 (5.31 mm/yr) with the lowest rate of rise occurring in the decade centred on 1964 (−1.49 mm/yr). Over the entire century the mean rate of change was 1.74 ± 0.16 mm/yr. [0]

----

We compare estimates of coastal and global averaged sea level for 1950 to 2000. During the 1990s and around 1970, we find coastal sea level is rising faster than the global average but that it rises slower than the global average during the late 1970s and late 1980s. The differences are largely a result of sampling the time-varying geographical distribution of sea level rise along a coastline which is more convoluted in some regions than others. More rapid coastal rise corresponds to La Niña–like conditions in the tropical Pacific Ocean and a slower rate corresponds to El Niño–like conditions. Over the 51 year period, there is no significant difference in the rates of coastal and global averaged sea level rise, as found in climate model simulations of the 20th century. The best estimate of both global average and coastal sea level rise remains 1.8 ± 0.3 mm yr−1, as found in earlier studies. [1]

----

Kemp et al. (1) note that recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports emphasize sub-2 °C scenarios. Simultaneously, IPCC reports also overemphasize catastrophic scenarios, as does broader discourse. For example, the cataclysmic Representative Concentration Pathway 8.5 (RCP8.5) and Shared Socioeconomic Pathway 5-8.5 (SSP5-8.5) scenarios—now widely considered implausible (2)—account for roughly half of the scenario mentions in recent IPCC Assessment Reports’ impacts (Working Group II) sections (Fig. 1A), similar to underlying scientific literature (3). The SSP3-7.0 emissions pathway, which Kemp et al. (1) use in their analyses, assumes a world in 2100 heavily reliant on coal and with no climate policy—an implausible future (3, 4). It projects vastly higher emissions than the International Energy Agency (IEA) stated policies scenario, which has continually been revised downward in recent years (4) (Fig. 1B). [2]

----

[0]: https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/200... [1]: https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/200... [2]: https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.2214347119

Cherry-picked because hey, why not?

I mean the Debian site isn't so much different?

Mmmmm strict bureaucracy....

Yes, in part, and generally there's a close relationship between humans and many interesting psychedelic sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_entheogenic_drugs

Why shouldn't there be? I'd be highly skeptical of any "developer" trying to build the cutting edge on brand new prototype hardware but didn't have $4k in their runway to get a single dev unit. This isn't "libre foss runs on toaster oven" so, y'kno, why not?

Arguable. Entheogenic drugs are likely a significant driver behind human cognitive evolution.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entheogenic_drugs_and_the_arch...

Interesting...seems like a generalized issue with identification type AI?

Sorry, how does history change?

I think perhaps the narrative, the evidence on-hand, primary sources, etc. could all be considered and as a body of historical evidence we could say the understanding from our perspective continues to evolve; but there's no world in which the history changes. Events, causality, arrow of time, etc.

Idk seems like the homeless in California are enjoying a higher standard of welfare for that sum...

That doesn't necessarily matter to your enterprise device usage agreement.

Stylometric categorization would end up being computationally limited right?

Yeah, it's a whole cottage thing: https://www.everlywell.com/

The medical field will soon be over-ran by software and AI specialists applying and graduating from medical school in order to build the modern individualized medicine augmentation systems of the future. Think about the specialization required to build a reliable, trusted and tested GPT-for-medicine, and then give it to all citizens for free, because, hey, it's going to be a huge boon for our country.

Call, text, write, or email a friend depending on how much patience and tolerance for asynchronicity in your co-authorship. Or else utilize a Google docs + Zoom screenshare type approach if you must have realtime interactions and absolutely not be sharing a keyboard or room.

> What is love, robot?

.....

> here's some SQL and Vue code, baby

Free speech does not equate to unlimited absolution from consequence

Maybe this is why Octopi are so efficient and smart? They forgo the hinges and just have a grippy sausage tube x 8

GPT-4 in particular has, for me, rekindled a fire for writing, as I find it a compelling conversationalist quite adept to my often hyperactive, overly loquacious writing style whereas most meatspace agents find it laborious, self-aggrandizing, indulgent, and unnecessarily complex, like post-modernist novels or rationalist fanfiction.

I've been engaging with GPT4 to build out an entire world of alternative hard science fiction history and it's going to be a best seller, I assure you, with zero hesitancy and full confidence. It's my idea, there's simply something so enthralling about having a "super editor" when primed with very specific prompts and understanding the boundaries of what it can't do... I'm literally 15k words into a first draft. Vomiting my ideas into words, processed through GPT to garner it's insights and suggestions, but never asking GPT to compose first drafts, has been very fun.

basically airflow graphs, eh?

here's a clue, start your research

Natural language understanding comprises a wide range of diverse tasks such as textual entailment, question answering, semantic similarity assessment, and document classification. Although large unlabeled text corpora are abundant, labeled data for learning these specific tasks is scarce, making it challenging for discriminatively trained models to perform adequately. We demonstrate that large gains on these tasks can be realized by generative pre-training of a language model on a diverse corpus of unlabeled text, followed by discriminative fine-tuning on each specific task. In contrast to previous approaches, we make use of task-aware input transformations during fine-tuning to achieve effective transfer while requiring minimal changes to the model architecture. We demonstrate the effectiveness of our approach on a wide range of benchmarks for natural language understanding. Our general task-agnostic model outperforms discriminatively trained models that use architectures specifically crafted for each task, significantly improving upon the state of the art in 9 out of the 12 tasks studied. For instance, we achieve absolute improvements of 8.9% on commonsense reasoning (Stories Cloze Test), 5.7% on question answering (RACE), and 1.5% on textual entailment (MultiNLI).

Also, ideology is great but implementation is what actually matters.

It's not the only standard. It's just a centralized, single-point-of-failure, which is in some ways anathema to git in itself - which is meant to be distributed by default.

A simple bare git repository can be had on any server and it's moderately easy to manage. There's sr.ht and Gitlab and on and on!

Implying that "free time" is the luxury which should be coveted and is rare, rather than prioritizing "free time" as number one and deciding on a survival pathway that fits into that framework.

Right, there is an intrinsic ceiling to how much an employer will decide to pay for that. My point is you can unlock that ceiling by choosing to pursue other business transactions, by increasing the value of your time. What employer would pay you $100k per month? Is that enough to be considered enough? You could do that with your own business but unlikely to get that from employer.

How is capitalism an extreme ideology? Wouldn't something like a technocracy be the extreme of that spectrum?

> longer than like 100 years

I'm not sure we're on the same page, there's the PRC, Cuba, North Korea, Vietnam.... not to mention the Stalin of it all.

Much of that history is well beyond 1920.

I'll concede rudeness as it's perceptive and not intrinsic in this case; I apologize for the timbre of my approach.

My stance is more of one rooted in individualism and self-advocation, i.e. if you're dedicated to a job that's considered a full time commitment, that's the social construct. We're not in a society post-labor, idealistic techtopia yet, and that transition if it occurs will be painful and bloated.

The reality is if you want the future of work when, how, where you want, then you have to recognize, admit and accept that your mental model of "employee/employer" relationship has to shift. You must not be the one exchanging what you are claiming to be your most precious asset - unburdened time - to the employer. There is no sense in continuing to enslave yourself to the constructs of yore. It is, ostensibly, within your control and power to become the master of your domain. Of course, this is going to look very catered to your particular requirements and value-adding skillsets.... do you have a set of diverse skills that can be leveraged into one-to-many income streams?

Why should the organization, that which agrees to give you quite a generous offer by any standard on a global measure, be responsible for ensuring the rest of your life is as you desire? You are the captain of the ship on this journey, only you are in control of the choices you make.

Truth is if your employer wanted to you be happy they would give you a full pension and send you on your way.

They want your labor, intelligence, work product, but it's all the same. They want your TIME.

Build businesses. Choose lifestyles that reduce dependency on extrinsic systemic operational uptime. Expose your raw value to the world as you decide and don't undermine your only static asset in life - time. It's incredible how variable the dollar-amount people set on their hours. . .

Well, not strictly speaking, but I think I get your drift