@Kevin_P's banner p

Kevin_P


				

				

				
0 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 05 06:24:54 UTC
Verified Email

				

User ID: 470

Kevin_P


				
				
				

				
0 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2022 September 05 06:24:54 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 470

Verified Email

What are ways that the Trump contingent could bring such a conspiracy to light without sounding like schizophrenic conspiracy theorists?

Maybe I'm out of touch because I'm not American but I thought Clinton's Pied Piper Strategy to push Trump to the nomination in 2016 was an established fact. Or at the very least a widely accepted theory even in mainstream / leftist media sources.

"They're trying the same thing again" doesn't seem like it would be treated as an outrageous conspiracy theory. Although by the same token it wouldn't be a shocking revelation either, just the standard dirty tricks that happen every election.

This seems like the right person, thanks!

I'm not going to tell you to move or not to move. If you have the money there's nothing wrong with spending it on something that will improve your quality of life.

But this:

I wonder if by moving to the pricier place, the higher rent will light a bit of a fire under my butt and result in faster progress in my work that ends up paying more dividends on a net basis. That might even be true after the first 15-months when rent will basically double.

... is wishful nonsense, as you seem to have already figured out based on your following paragraph.

You can use the same logic to justify any sort of spending, not just housing. And other things too - eating that extra dessert is actually good for my diet, because gaining weight will make me more focused on exercise tomorrow.

Ironically the motivation trick will probably work better in the opposite direction. Tell yourself, "if I put in the extra effort over the next 12 months, I'll treat myself to a nicer apartment this time next year". That way you're linking the effort to the reward in a much more direct way.

Like I said at the beginning, this doesn't mean you shouldn't move. If the nice apartment is worth the extra cost then go for it, you don't seem to be hurting for cash. But don't justify it based on second-order effects that will probably never happen.

Also you can simplify the two short-term financial effects you mentioned. A $x discount per month for 15 months plus a $1500 one-time cost is pretty much the same thing as a discount of $(x-100).

Mostly money. From the administrators' point of view it's all about the tuition fees. And not just for the masters students, in some humanities programmes even the PhD students have to pay.

From the professors' point of view, postgraduates help support their supervisors' research, plus they're much more interesting to work with than undergrads.

Why would I buy AI-generated imagery from Shutterstock when I could just make it myself?

Aside from the time savings that other people have mentioned, the other big advantage of Shutterstock is that it handles all of the relevant copyrights. Using AI art generation is probably OK from an IP rights perspective, but there's still a chance that a generated image will be close enough to the source material that the original artist could sue.

Using Shutterstock already insulates companies from the risk of traditional artists giving them a copied picture. I can see how people would see the same service as valuable for AI images too, at least until the legal issues get straightened out.

Specifically Frontier (Elite 2) and Frontier: First Encounters (effectively an expansion to Frontier but sold as a separate game to try and wriggle out of a contract). The original Elite didn't have Newtonian flight.

People here often bring up legal issues with relying on IQ tests etc but I don't think it's the real problem. The legal issues basically only apply to employers in America, but other countries without those laws are still experiencing the same sort of higher education signaling spiral.

Sorry for snapping at you but that was one of the examples I was thinking about when I wrote the post. It makes a lot of assertions but is very short on actual numbers. There's a chart but it's on a 100 year scale and far too zoomed out to read off the emissions numbers for any given year. And maybe I'm just not reading the references properly but I looked up a few of them and couldn't find anything in there that directly says how many gigatonnes of CO2 were emitted vs how many were forecast by RCP8.5.

Limiting to things that I've known people to forget or not think of:

  • Chargers (this is the #1 forgotten item among people I know)

  • Plug adapters, if traveling somewhere with a different electrical system

  • Mouse (you CAN work on the trackpad for two weeks, but it's much less comfortable)

  • Work shoes, if traveling in comfortable shoes (somehow shoes are much easier to forget than shirts or trousers)

  • Download or print out your tickets and hotel reservations

  • Spare phone, if traveling somewhere where roaming is expensive (it's often much cheaper to buy a local sim card rather than paying roaming fees for data)

Obviously also ID, bank cards, phone, laptop, clothes etc as others have said - but those are obvious enough that you're not realistically going to forget them.

The Oxford English Dictionary is usually a good place to look. The full version has sourced examples for early usages of all different senses of a word.

Unfortunately it's a paid service but someone here might have access, most likely through a university.

My favorite illustration of this is something called Centaur Chess.

Early chess engines would occasionally make dumb moves that were obvious to human players. Even when their overall level improved enough to beat the top human players they still often did things that skilled players could see were sub-optimal.

This meant that in the late 90s / early 00s the best "players" were human-computer teams. A chess engine would suggest moves, then a human grandmaster would make their move based on that - either playing the way the computer suggested, or substituting their own move if they saw something the computer had missed.

But as AI continued to develop the engine's suggestions kept getting better. Eventually they reached a point where any "corrections" were more likely to be the human misunderstanding what the computer was trying to do rather than a genuine mistake. Human plus computer became weaker than the computer alone, and the best tactic was to just directly play the AI's moves and resist the temptation to make improvements.

"Only have access to the good stuff" is probably best accomplished by limiting access to GPUs at all.

This is already happening. The US government has already banned Nvidia from selling high-end chipsets to customers in China. One important point about the bans is that this not only bans the current top-end chips but also anything they develop in the future with similar capabilities - so in a few years it will cover high-end gaming cards too, and gradually extend lower down the range as time goes on.

That's currently in the geopolitics sphere, but it's easy to see it being rolled out to other customers that the people in charge don't want to have unfiltered access to modern AI tools. If the masses want powerful GPUs they can use an online service like GeForce Now or Dall-E that restricts any sort of dangerous/undesirable behavior.