mptest

>You'd think by now that everyone—especially those who'd intend forging documents—would be aware of the 'mismatched' font problem but it appears not because it's happened in significant numbers of high profile cases in the past.

I'm reminded of that scene in mindhunter where the detectives go to Kemper something like "this theory is unsupported by the data we've collected on serial killers." And kemper calmly responds "Seems to me all of the data you've gathered is from serial killers you're caught."

Kemper believes there are many serial killers undiscovered, and more importantly easily able to avoid detection (as he did) unless they turn themselves in. This is while the fbi is speculating profiles of an active serial killer.

If only there were someone, or some institution that could think more long term than mindless consumers. We could call it a Governing board or something!

To expand on this, it was so perfect at the haystack benchmark that they invented a new one, basically a hundred needle in the haystack benchmark. they had to invent new benchmarks for the model because it blew all existing ones out of the water. [0]

[0]https://youtu.be/Cs6pe8o7XY8

Don't know why I didn't think of that. Thanks a bunch. I guess i subconsciously ignored it because people here didn't seem to hype it up too much. thanks again

Exactly what i want. Khanmigo with infinite battery. I can get around it by making 10 accs with 10 virtual cc's but wanted to see if anyone had a better option maybe a home spun mixtral model fine tuned for math

Should have noted: I'm happy to pay money if khanmigo had a 100/m infinite battery option but they don't. it's 10/m for limited usage and that's it. I can pay. But I need a sota math llm tutor. Happy to pay a finders fee to whatever generous soul points me in the right direction.

Gee if only there were a way to organize labor so we have more collective protections.... i Wonder if any sv startup has thought of that?

Can anyone recommend a similar app/site for learning go? That one feels so hard to learn, but it is so fun. the games really feel like a conversation

>That's a silly claim unless you tax them to such an extent that black marker drugs become more competitive.

Not at all. First off, all the money we spend on the dea and other drug enforcement could be instantly recouped. Billions for those d.a.r.e clowns ALONE. Plus, I'd wager to say cost of legal production would be a lot lower than illegal production + illicit shipment to end users. That leaves plenty of room to make a decent buck on taxes. But yeah a big portion of money would come from all the idiotic shit we no longer would have to do with drugs legal.

>>daily limits

>unlimited access to oxycontin

Did you even read what you quoted? Who said Unlimited?

Also, I'm just starting the book but I love the authors youtube videos and it seems germane, a brief history of black holes by dr becky smethurst seems to have decent reviews and her videos are great. Maybe check her out on youtube if you're more experienced but I'm finding her book fun as a layman

I wonder with "do not waffle" if it has any accidental aversion to anything waffle related.

for most drugs I agree but if we were going to be serious about legal heroin and coke and meth and the heavy shit to me it makes sense to say 18 for most shit then 25 plus a license to get the heavy shit

brain fully developed. I was trying to be as conservative as possible

Even if you don't think it's a large issue morally or whatever, the money we spend policing them, the drugs they do, and the immense wealth of black market dealers should all show you it is a major problem, even if only a financially ridiculous decision for any state to make. Waste money impotently pretending to police drugs instead of generating tax revenue selling them. It's absolutely brain dead how we operate.

Freely? Without any limitations? Of course not man.

25+ for hard drugs, daily limits, mandate taxes go to facilities for treatment and rehabilitation. Take the hundreds of billions from the global black market for drugs and the tens of billions we spend impotently pretending to stop drug dealers with idiotic agencies like the DEA and all of the sudden we turn a GIGANTIC minus in our budget in to a GIGANTIC increase in funding.

>Whether cocaine should be legal or not is another topic

How? It should be THE topic. Fucking stop all this bullshit waste of time and money and lives trying to police what fucking adults consume in their own home. How can anyone with a brain look at all the inane war on drugs and come to any other conclusion than all drugs should be legalized?

Let them buy it in a legal, controlled, licensed, tax paying store, like the adults they are.

Absolutely childish and the one of the biggest most consistently stupid thing we as a society do is prohibition of drugs. How many people will die, how many billions will we waste on the "war on drugs" (read, war on minorities and the poor) before we wisen the fuck up? It is actually insane that we continue to play this ridiculous game and pretend we can't ALL see what the solution is.

Whatever helps you focus on the thoughts. Personally, I've found walking in nature is the best. There's plenty of empirics about being in and around nature and even if you're focusing on your surroundings it won't harm your focus (in my case at least, it feels like it helps). But honestly I haven't made any concerted effort to force behavior gaze wise either way. YMMV

One hundred percent the same deal. The idea is anything that utilizes both sides of your body utilizes both sides of your brain too.

Walking is just the easiest and something almost everyone can do. In therapy I've had it be something as simple as tapping each thigh with my hands alternatively.

Exactly right, the idea is basically to force the processing that happens during that rem phase.

That's done, Hartman theorizes, and I forgot the level of basis in empirics he has, by doing anything that facilitates both sides of your brain working together. That's easiest done by walking, since you really are forcing both sides to communicate to facilitate the motion. Then thinking and focusing on the trauma/loss basically mimics the processing done during that rem processing.

Best of luck friend. As mentioned in my other reply, it works best with some therapy to help process while you're focusing on the issue, and it works best on more acute trauma, but I've found it helps at least a good bit with everything. After all how many famous thinkers espoused the value of walking to help them think?

It really helped me think about the issues as healthily as they could be, and it severely diminished the constant presence of them in my thoughts. I hope it helps you.

Take out three and you've pretty much got the idea.

1. Any movement that utilizes both halves of your brain/body. Walking is just easiest and the one he chooses. In therapy I've had something as simple as alternatively tapping my hands on my thighs. The point is to be using both sides of your brain. I've found walking works best personally.

2. Think of traumatic thing/event. Really focus on it at the front of your mind. The idea is that while using both sides of your brain walking, and keeping the idea at the forefront of your mind can sort of manually force the processing of the trauma. I have to note it works best (in my experience) with more acute trauma. Complex trauma is harder to keep in the same mental box while you're processing.

3. Unneeded. The walking is what facilitates the idea behind the eye movement. Utilizing both sides of your brain basically.

4. Yeah, the idea is to force the processing. Eventually the sort of "charge" with the memory/event dissipates as you begin to better be able to think about and handle the event.

4b I should note being in therapy helps too, as in general how best to think about the trauma can be difficult. For me though, I'd had plenty of therapy and had the tools, the method helped me actually do the "work" of the processing. YMMV.

Walking your blues away by thom hartman is a beautiful book that applies emdr + walking to process trauma.

In the book, he notes the prevailing theory that our daily happenings remain on a sort of temporary scratchpad. As we sleep we sort, discard, process as necessary. Trauma however, is too big, too hard to process naturally. So, it stays on that daily scratch pad. Always with you. Every day, the same as if it were happening today. No relief, no dissipation of the emotional charge. Emdr therapy while walking to facilitate both hemispheres of your brain working together, is his prescription.

The book/methodology I can honestly say saved my life and gave me a life, a future. A way to cope with things that were driving me crazy. Everyone I've given a copy to has deeply thanked me later. Please, if you have anything weighing on you, give the book a look. It's only like 70 pages.

Ai writing detectors are not a useful tool. Might as well use a polygraph

Ok, so first off happy thanksgiving. I'm drunk at this point so forgive my probable incoherence.

while there's some validity in the notion that philanthropists do good occasionally, a better question is would their good more effective than a state solution? I don't have a ton of evidence on hand right now, but highways, the whole new deal america stuff pretty clearly did more for infrastructure than any philanthropist. In the terms of stuff like the gates foundation, at the end of the day I'm a utilitarian. They do good I'm happy.

All I'm sayin is a more egalitarian state might have achieved the goal quicker had they any rich guys' will to solve it.

At the end of the day I don't have the evidence off hand but everything I've read points to the state as the source of modern amenities but admittedly I'm biased towards tech and leftism and I'm no expert. I haven't exactly read ayn rand. I've read stuff like pikkety and sunkara.

In the cases where billionaires do good I ask, Couldn't a state with that same will do more?

This notion that medical inventions are the benevolent gift of billionaires' ability to accumulate wealth is just wrong. What medical advances were made by the process you imagine in this comment? Maybe if brian johnson's blood magic from his son works I'll cede a single point here.

Science is a communal, collective effort, more evidently than anything else I can think of. To need to say that here of all places is really unfortunate

To try and act like taxing the rich is incompatible with medical advancement is just wrong. In the 50's and 60's we still made advancements and google the top marginal tax rate then. Do you think research would even slow down if rich people were capped at 999m? Seriously?

Reign in unlimited military spending is not "limited government", it's "limited military". Making sure the pentagon stops "losing" trillions is not small government it's basic accountability. But you're right it's more than that. And the billionaires. But like I said, one point at a time! You've clearly read ahead of the class. And "no more pork barrels for democrats"? I said leftist, not democrat.

I still believe in state solutions to healthcare to start, since that's the topic at hand.

And yes, I know it's much bigger than the military and pentagon, but I can't exactly summarize Pikkety's Capital and ideology or the socialist manifesto by sunkara in a couple hn comments can I?

Re the "we're vital for the whole house of cards" to remain standing, lol.

What good have we done recently besides maybe funding ukraine? Were we keeping the house of cards standing in iraq? vietnam? Korea? points to latin america in general Need I go on? Iran? Were we keeping the cards up when we spent money arming the Mujahadeen?

You're right that reducing spending, particularly the pentagon's blank check and the military budget is going to play a larger role but stop reading ahead! I can only push leftist politics one point at a time out here!

>the state is bad because it declares war and sends people to their deaths

Wouldn't it make more sense to conclude war is bad, rather than states themselves?

>Its projects often go astonishingly over budget, corruption is high in many countries, and its funding is unreliable, as it's prone to not keeping the promises of the people previously in charge

All of this I agree with. But the solution isn't "less states" it's... Better states, surely? What am I missing here?

My point with the question about where a majority of our infrastructure comes from, (roads, schools, hospitals, water, electricity and sewage systems to specify as a start) the state or the benevolence of philanthropists was to demonstrate that there is quite a bit of evidence as to what structure is the better steward of societies, a bunch of rich guys, or a state with some mandate to do right by its constituents.

>You're confusing resources they have control over with resources for their own personal utilization

I don't know if they're as different as you portray in practice. I agree with the notion in theory, which is why I distinctly used "wealth" in my original comment and not "income".

>He's been entrusted to make decisions about how to spend our economy's resources in part because he's made good decisions in the past.

Sure, no one is saying don't aspire to a meritocracy when considering control of the state's purse strings.

The key to your example and your "accumulation of wealth by itself isn't necessarily bad" notion is the reason I didn't say "no organization" should have more than 999m. I was strictly referring to excess personal accumulation of capital. Which harms us all.

Like I said, no one's quality of life is going to get worse if personal wealth were capped at 999m, but I can think of infinite ways to make a lot of people's quality of life better with the money we'd have in such an organization of the economy.

>and it's bad when it can continue to be accumulated by doing nothing

I don't even know if I agree with this. A state fund that earns interest and spends that interest makes sense. I think the key is the first case you note where it's bad.