ulyssessword
No bio...
User ID: 308
ulyssessword
3d ago
How would you compare something like content aware fill to inpainting or other AI image techniques?
Content aware fill is part of the Adobe Creative Suite, and therefore "not-LLM-like" to the public. Inpainting is part of Stable Diffusion and other AI models, and is therefore "LLM-like" to the public (diffusion models are practically LLMs, as long as you ignore what those initials stand for).
As far as I can tell, those two are technically identical, but the AntiAI side will treat them differently because one costs 1000x as much as the other.
For another complication, how about the Samsung fake moon tool, which is entirely constrained to the camera?
ulyssessword
4d ago
I don't know about that. I removed Reddit from my bookmarks toolbar, and my use dropped off a cliff. Sometimes a 10-second barrier is enough to stop an impulsive decision.
ulyssessword
4d ago
I thought the facehugger got you before you could finish typing your username.
ulyssessword
5d ago
Maybe it's just a skill issue, but I didn't get the joke.
How would you go from their comment (as written) to "it was self deprecating to link the really religious to the socially retarded" (as they explained downthread.)?
ulyssessword
5d ago
Probably because she thinks that's the stronger argument?
Generally, pro-abortion arguments are for at-will abortion, not for medically-required ones. Many ostensible bans on abortion contain exceptions for the health of the mother (and for some crimes committed against them), but those laws aren't what the activists are trying to promote.
I think brawnze is pointing out...That's how I read it anyway.
I read it as fullhearted participation. From the post (emphasis added):
When I meet someone with conservative leanings I have to determine what that guy's specific deal is, because there always is one. Redneck? Really religious? Too-clever-by-half contrarian? Socially retarded?
followed by a clarification that their judgment is deliberately rooted in bad standards.
It's usually difficult to distinguish people who are unserious jokers from those who have foreign (for lack of a better term) values that I'd like to learn about. At least unless they identify themselves.
ulyssessword
12d ago
I think "believe in" is the proper breakdown, as from Pratchett:
It’s hard to believe in the gods, he thought, when certain people are never struck by lightning. Why doesn’t it happen? If the gods wanted people to believe in them, they’d show themselves occasionally. That’s the whole point.
After all, you never needed faith in the postman. You just knew the postman would come, rain or shine, and deliver the mail. You didn’t have to believe in him. He was just there.
It was the same with the gods. They were just there, too, and you didn’t have to believe in them any more than you had to believe in the sky. You just knew they were there.
And if you didn’t believe in something, then it couldn’t help you.
By that standard, most biologists don't "believe in" evolution, it's simply there. My guess would be that someone who "believes in" Darwinian evolution uses it as a guiding principle and might do things like driving increased competition or having a lot of children. Or maybe a completely different set of beliefs. It's not like social movements stick close to their namesakes.
ulyssessword
12d ago
Whether it is an investment is beyond our ability to change. Whether it's promoted and protected as an investment is more malleable.
As an example, Canada's new housing minister said that prices don't need to come down. He is promoting housing as an investment instead of as shelter, and it doesn't need to be that way. He could've just as easily said "Prices need to come down because houses are for living in. To those who had planned on downsizing and using the extra money for retirement other purposes, it sucks to be you, but too bad. we'll help you make a different plan. To the foreign investors who bought properties here, I'd like to say lol, thanks for the cash, suckers that this will help us ensure sustainable growth that we can all benefit from."
ulyssessword
12d ago
Thanks for the candor.
Being self-aware that your opinions are absurd is much worse than standing defiant against accusations that your opinions are absurd, regardless of how strong the accusations are. If you already know you're wrong, why don't you change your mind?
ulyssessword
12d ago
flatly unwelcome at our various employers' pride networking corporate events.
Is that your moral barometer? I've heard of people using the Church's approval as a proxy for moral behaviour, but this might be the first time I've seen someone use corporations in that role.
ulyssessword
12d ago
Union leadership also limits membership to secure jobs for their members.
If the local union has 500 members and each can do 0.2 houses per year (e.g. a crew of 10 can do two houses per year), then I guess your city is building a max of 100 houses. What if you want more than 100 houses built? Too bad, union labor is mandated, and they're not interested in de-monopilizing the sector.
Those 500 workers will sure be happy that they're in so much demand. The union did its job.
ulyssessword
14d ago
I think free range is good for kids simply because it allows for kids to grow into adulthood.
A quote that stuck with me: "You aren't raising a child, you're raising an adult who happens to be a child right now."
Some people have learned very well how to be children, and have 20+ years of experience in that role. Others have already gained experience with adulthood before they get legal recognition at 18, and are already (somewhat) prepared for the challenges they will be facing.
ulyssessword
15d ago
My example is a nine year old story from a second rate publication: Machine Bias from ProPublica was the last long-form news article I trusted.
I don't have anything newer because...I stopped trusting the authors, and therefore stopped reading the articles. I'll revisit the issue once they cut ties with the old, flawed system and try to make a new one. I'm not holding my breath, though.
ulyssessword
16d ago
At least 99% of these cases cite the original press statement so you can judge it.
Can you link two examples? I've seen one news article that contained a link back to the company/government/organization's original press release. The rest just say "according to a press release", if that.
ulyssessword
18d ago
I presume this took a great amount of electricity (although I don’t remember a measurable impact on bills)
It shouldn't take any more than any other type of electric heat. In fact, I'd suspect it's negligibly cheaper to heat water in two minutes instead of 20: You have to add the same amount of net thermal energy to the pot, but you aren't losing heat from a 20-99C pot for the other 18 minutes.
ulyssessword
20d ago
I would consider it a good thing for student-activists and campus administrations alike to learn...limitations of protest, boundaries of conduct at university... That's not going to happen regardless. Pick your poison.
As an empirical question, they are learning the limits and boundaries through personal experience. I just don't like what the limits are.
You did not count as vaccinated and dead unless you died > 2 weeks after your vaccination?
A couple years ago, someone here claimed that the risk stats were thrown off because of that. Essentially, that the reports were looking at:
- (unvaccinated deaths + recently vaccinated deaths) / (unvaccinated population)
- (fully vaccinated deaths) / (fully vaccinated population + recently vaccinated population)
When I looked into it, I couldn't disprove that interpretation with the raw text of the data analysis, but surely they can't be that bad, right??
ulyssessword
22d ago
Your tone sounds like it's dismissing the concerns, but your claims are the furthest thing possible from reassuring.
Who's funding terrorists on American soil? How can the US claim to protect their allies when it can't even protect their staff? Who would want this outcome (okay, that's kind of a long list)?
A "reassuring" way for embassy staff to be shot dead is random crossfire from an unrelated crime. State-sponsored assassination or terrorism is the worst scenario.
Kamala Harris - "The vaccine will prevent you from getting covid."
Link?
The closest I found was here, but it's explicitly about protection from hospitalization and death.
ulyssessword
23d ago
Does anyone have a citation for...
I'm starting to feel like AI use is the new "just google it" for basic factual questions. This says:
- Deaths from COVID and deaths with COVID were both counted and reported in different places.
- "However, surveillance and public health reporting sometimes used broader definitions for statistical purposes, such as counting deaths within a certain period after a positive COVID-19 test as "COVID-related deaths," particularly in the UK and some US states."
After all that the citations are the BBC (reporting on the change from "anyone who has ever had COVID, regardless of whether it contributed to their death or not" to "anyone who has had COVID in the past 28 days, regardless of whether it contributed to their death or not"), and Colorado Public Radio ("Deaths from" vs. "deaths with").
ulyssessword
24d ago
ulyssessword
24d ago
Anti-natalist ideas fit perfectly well, as having a child introduces obligations, personal, financial, and emotional. A parent is simply not as free to act on hedonistic desires because the child needs things.
The more consistent version of that is that it's imposing obligations on the child. The "childfree" strain of thought you describe is much more common than the "philosophical antinatalist" one, but I think they're worth distinguishing.
Under the lens of "obligation", the parents are forcing an entire lifetime of choices and tradeoffs onto their new child, while the more neurotic of the obligation-thinkers would hesitate to extend an invitation to someone because it creates the obligation to respond (even if it's to decline!).
ulyssessword
24d ago
What is to stop the slim majority of one political party of censuring enough members of the opposing party based on similar fig-leaf reasons, depriving them of the ability to vote, and thus gaining the super-majority?
That sounds like a Second Amendment sort of question.
More realistically, they lose legitimacy, people defy them, and they stop going down that path before reaching that point. That's hardly the only open road to tyranny.
ulyssessword
24d ago
Computer algorithms. I consider this basically the new literacy.
I took a first-year Computer Science course ten-ish years ago, and at the end the prof said: "If you went back in time 50 years with what you know now, you'd be one of the most knowledgeable Computer Scientists alive."
We were doing simple things like algorithmic complexity, sorting algorithms, linked lists, binary trees, and object-oriented programming (and did conditions, loops, control flow, etc. in the previous class), and...he might not have been exaggerating. A lot of the things we learned were discovered/created in the past 50 years, and they aren't just minor pieces of trivia.
How many of them?
More options
Context Copy link