shonenknifefan1

I appreciate that most of these pelicans are not holding the handlebars, i think that's more realistic than the alternative

I sometimes wish that I could read a book like that. But I think the reality is that it would make me tired and fall asleep.

> While combing through the raw DNA sequence near the RT, the agent exclaimed: “[The DNA next to the RT] is spectacular: I can see by eye a tandem repeat array … that's a CRISPR-like … repeat array?!”

I love that with AI discoveries, we can relive the discoveries from agent transcripts like this.

I'm sort of imagining future histories involving notable AI events peppered with direct quotes like these.

Since this contains an anthroporphized fish, does that make this a fable rather than a parable?

NFL teams might even be a better investment than European soccer teams since they have a monopoly over professional football in a region, and are not susceptible to significantly decreased valuation that might result from being relegated to a lower league.

I think this is right. Any measurement will have finite precision, so while we might be able to discover some maximum precision that the universe uses eventually, we won't ever be able to prove that the universe has infinite precision representations from finite precision measurements.

A 'thank you' that might otherwise end a conversation will trigger a response by the model that will generate additional tokens. So the inclusion of the pleasantries could increase tokens beyond the pleasantries themselves.

Given that LLM content is generated with some randomness, and assuming that published LLM content is filtered to be useful for humans, then even in the case where no content is being generated by humans, I would expect the published content to contain new information that is generated by humans.

How do vines attached to a building affect fire risk for that building?

preprint is here: https://arxiv.org/abs/2212.11841

Great game! Thanks for posting!

Hmm, it looks like some ASCII characters are missing from the hard-coded alphabet here: https://github.com/sjvasquez/handwriting-synthesis/blob/mast...

alphabet = [ '\x00', ' ', '!', '"', '#', "'", '(', ')', ',', '-', '.', '0', '1', '2', '3', '4', '5', '6', '7', '8', '9', ':', ';', '?', 'A', 'B', 'C', 'D', 'E', 'F', 'G', 'H', 'I', 'J', 'K', 'L', 'M', 'N', 'O', 'P', 'R', 'S', 'T', 'U', 'V', 'W', 'Y', 'a', 'b', 'c', 'd', 'e', 'f', 'g', 'h', 'i', 'j', 'k', 'l', 'm', 'n', 'o', 'p', 'q', 'r', 's', 't', 'u', 'v', 'w', 'x', 'y', 'z' ]

That seems to explain why it fails on capital X/Q and doesn't fail on lowercase x/q.

This is the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, which is the foundation of quantum mechanics.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle?wprov=sf...

Jaynes has a good chapter on the topic of the distinction between randomness and ignorance within the Bayesian framework [1] in "Probability Theory: The Logic of Science".

The distinction between the two is that in the context of ignorance your belief state is very unstable and susceptible to change with the injection of new information. On the other hand, in the context of a "random" event like a coin flip, your belief state is very stable and unsusceptible to change with the injection of new information.

Whereas you may initially apply the same probability to both a coin flip and the outcome of a wrestling match, those probabilities will evolve in very different ways as you acquire new information such as inspecting the coin/combatants. The probability of the outcome of the coin flip is unlikely to change at all, whereas the probability of the outcome of the wrestling match could change substantially.

This can be modeled by assigning the probability of an outcome to a continuous rate parameter, and assigning a probability distribution to that rate parameter. The entropy of that probability distribution can describe how ignorant your belief state is, and hence how susceptible it is to change.

[1] http://www-biba.inrialpes.fr/Jaynes/cc18i.pdf

It looks like the CAD file formats are specified here:

https://github.com/usnationalarchives/digital-preservation/b...

which includes X3D, STEP, PDF/E, U3D, PRC

If demand is comparable to supply at the price at which the tickets were initially purchased by scalpers, then the fair market value on the secondary market would be about the same as the initial price, at which point the scalpers would have lost money on the deal (after accounting for secondary market fees), and customers would end up paying about the same price as they would have if they had purchased them directly from the venue/promoter.

> Types of cave entrances identified in the catalog include lava tube skylights, deep fractures, Atypical Pit Craters (APCs), and other void spaces in karst-similar terrains.

The cave candidates that they displayed in the image were all in the Tharsis Montes surrounding the major martian volcanos in the most volcanic region of Mars, so I suspect that those ones are largely lava tubes.

I had assumed when reading this that the voting credit budget would be allocated per question rather than across the entire ballot. However I don't think the article gave an example of a ballot with multiple questions.

I'd be interested to learn which way this being implemented in practice for multi-question ballots.

> To cure health care, give your care-givers a clear incentive to keep you well. Make sure that when you lose, they lose, and just as much. Buy lots of life and disability insurance from your care-givers, and have a third party, unable to act against your life or health, pay you to be the beneficiary.

Yes, though regardless of which branch you pick to define i^i, it's value is real.

Agreed. Though, I think that in most contexts the compiler would probably be able to disambiguate which version is intended from type resolution. So maybe it would be better to be able to optionally specify whether we want the sync or async version, possibly overloading our usual polymorphic syntax, e.g.

  do_something().await;  // Its clear that we're using the async version
  do_something::<sync>();  // I really want the sync version, even in async contexts

My initial thought is that paid interviews might shift the incentive of candidates from getting hired to doing more interviews regardless of interest in a given company. That might lead to a reduction in the interview -> hire rate, which then might increase the cost per hire even without considering the payout to the candidates for interviewing. This hypothesis should be testable. Though, the dynamics would probably be different if this policy became an industry standard.

Interestingly, the solution of the ball falling off of the dome when starting at rest is not physical, but since Newtonian Mechanisms is symmetric under time reversal, the the time reverse of that solution should also be a valid solution, and that solution - the ball arriving at the top of the dome from the bottom - is physical.

I think that if it can carry a water bottle, then it could carry a meal. The dog robots could automate restaurant food delivery for short range delivery in cities. They could possibly even climb stairs to reach walk up apartments.