site banner
Advanced search parameters (with examples): "author:quadnarca", "domain:reddit.com", "over18:true"

Showing 25 of 8580 results for

domain:link.springer.com

Rep. Burlison confirms new UAP hearing for September 9th with three confirmed witnesses (potentially more).

The truth always comes out in the end.

Mainstream science dismisses the concerns and sees the object as ordinary red colored D-type asteroid.

Mainstream science told you to mask up and get the covid vaccine too.

If a Scotsman finds out you knowingly transmitted human immuno-deficiency virus to them, they're sure to SHIV you.

Sure it is incrementally better on what we already have. The problem I'm trying to illuminate with it is that is the compute worth the provided value? It is hardly taking away a job from anyone doing the proof reading, it is an improved version of what we already have.

"I would like an illustration for my fanfiction/roleplaying character. No, I'm not hiring an artist--I'm doing this for free, after all."

tl;dr: his posited comparison is that in both cases, the USG had a tradeoff between "help Israeli intel" and "prosecute pedos" and chose the former.

Only if the former case was Israeli intel, which is the point under discussion.

I'm surprised that this is controversial. I didn't think it was a hot take. Even at my first internship (at a large tech company), during the general onboarding, I was introduced to the concept of the Pareto principle, used to explain that 80% of the work is done by 20% of the employees.

If you think so, you should post your short positions.

Shorts on who?

Some hard science news, that nevertheless became part of culture wars.

As you probably heard, third recorded interstellar object is on the way. It stands out of sample of three, just like the previous two.

The usual suspects, most prominent Avi Loeb and John Brandenburg of ancient nuclear war on Mars fame sound an alarm to warn from incoming alien invader.

Mainstream science dismisses the concerns and sees the object as ordinary red colored D-type asteroid.

< tinfoil hat> well, what are they supposed to do? </tinfoil hat>

Not that "we" as mankind could do anything if ayys were really here. See just Avi Loeb's proposals.

What Should Humanity Do on the Day After an Interstellar Object is Recognized as Technological?

...

All nations must agree on a coordinated action plan

...

A representative international committee will be appointed to communicate with the alien visitors

Nah. I cannot imagine better way to ensure Earth's swift destruction than to introduce aliens to United Nations. Compared to this plan, doing nothing at all is the superior alternative.

Does anyone seriously think that these tech companies are selling $200+ worth of compute for $20? The natural assumption should be that they're making good margins on inference and all the losses are due to research/training, fixed costs, wages, capital investment. Why would a venture capitalist, who's whole livelihood and fortune depends on prudent investment, hand money to Anthropic or OpenAI so they can just hand that money to NVIDIA and me, the customer?

Anthropic is providing its services for free to the US govt but that's a special case to buy influence/cultivate dependence. If you, a normal person, mega minmax the subscription you might use more than you pay for but not by that much and the average subscriber will use less. Plus you might praise it online and encourage other people to use the product so it's a good investment.

What evidence points in this direction of ultra-benign, pro-consumer capitalism with 10x subsidies? It seems like a pure myth to me. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Take OpenAI. Sam Altman said he was losing money on the $200 subscription. But Sam Altman says a lot of things and he didn't say 'losing 10x more than we gain'.

The company has projected that it would record losses of about $5 billion and revenue of $3.7 billion for 2024, the New York Times reported in September. The company’s biggest cost is due to the computing power used to run ChatGPT. Not only does it require huge investments in data centers, it also demands vast amounts of electricity to run them.

If the company is losing 150% of revenue (and Anthropic is similar), not 1000% or higher, then clearly it's what I'm saying, not what you're saying. Inference/API is profitable. User subscriptions are profitable. Investment is not profitable in the short term, that's why it's called investment. And they have their fixed costs... That's why AI companies are losing money, they're investing heavily and competing for users.

Furthermore, one study of a selected group of coders doing a subset of software tasks with old models does not disprove the general utility of AI generally, it's not a major, significant fact. I could find studies that show that AI produces productivity gains quite easily. That wouldn't mean that it produces productivity gains in all settings, for all people.

Here's one such study for instance, it finds what you'd expect. Juniors gain more than seniors.

https://mitsloan.mit.edu/ideas-made-to-matter/how-generative-ai-affects-highly-skilled-workers

Or here he lists some more and finds productivity gains with some downsides: https://addyo.substack.com/p/the-reality-of-ai-assisted-software

The metr paper just tells (some) people what they want to hear, it is not conclusive any more than the other papers are conclusive. And a lot of people don't read the metr paper closely. For instance:

Familiarity and inefficiency in use: These devs were relatively new to the specific AI tools. Only one participant had >50 hours experience with Cursor; notably, that one experienced user did see a positive speedup, suggesting a learning curve effect. Others may have used the AI sub-optimally or gotten stuck following it down wrong paths.

On part of the Israeli guy, this seems a major failure of judgement. I mean, that guy was in fucking Vegas, and could not be arsed to hire a hooker who at least claimed to be 18?

It's probably simple arrogance.

Why? This seems like a pretty random comparison. Your theory for Epstein is that his operation was an Israeli intelligence plot to gain kompromat. What does that have to do with an Israeli official getting arrested in a sex sting (with 7 other people, who have a mix of Anglo, Hispanic and South Asian names) unless you’re suggesting that the sting was also an Israeli intelligence plot (in which case why was he arrested and his arrest publicly announced)? The Israeli government obviously used diplomatic pressure for his release since a senior intelligence official under serious felony charge is highly vulnerable to interrogation, not only by the US but by anyone else who can get to him in jail or on bail. They may have traded something, they may not, but Shaun King certainly doesn’t know.

As I understand, his reading here is that (1) this case provides evidence that the US government and criminal justice system puts higher value on Israeli intelligence interests over prosecution of pederasts, and are willing and able to engage in perversions of justice and coordinate gaslighting of any public observers to implement this preference; (2) for the "there is nothing particularly fishy about Epstein" theory, the assumption that the above conjunction is wrong is load-bearing. The argument generally is one of compounding implausibility - "Epstein worked for Israeli intelligence" is an extraordinary claim, as is "the USG first sabotaged any legal means to stop him, and then killed him or arranged for him to kill himself when it could no longer be delayed", as is "the USG apparatus successfully conspired to maintain official denial the aforementioned facts", so a theory that requires the three of them to hold is extraordinary indeed - unless the three statements are not in fact independent, in which case the resulting probability may in the extreme case just almost equal the probability of the single proposition of "Epstein worked for Israeli intelligence" alone, which looks a lot better when weighed off against the "series of unfortunate events" null hypothesis.

tl;dr: his posited comparison is that in both cases, the USG had a tradeoff between "help Israeli intel" and "prosecute pedos" and chose the former.

Pinging @fmac but what specific jobs are you referring to? I can't say I've ever worked with anyone whose job I would describe as a "fake email job".

It's sad that there's this misapprehension that girls are being kidnapped by abusers, when a huge number of runaway girls (something like 20%-40% in most studies) are fleeing sexual abuse in the home.

Right--I've seen other studies suggesting that a majority (perhaps more than 70%) of runaway girls experience some kind of sexual abuse, but I don't have access to the study to see whether they distinguish based on when and where that abuse occurred (i.e. prior to running away, or as a result of it).

Also, no small number of teens run away from home because they are addicted to drugs and their parents are trying to stop them from using. It really is an extremely multifaceted problem.

And none of them will fix errors like 'pubic law'. It won't notice when 'losses of profits' should be 'losses or profits'. It won't call out a date of 20008.

the US doesn't officially recognize dual citizenship

What is this supposed to mean? The US allows dual citizenship explicitly, and there is no shortage of official US government material acknowledging this possibility and even outlining special rules surrounding it. How much more recognising can you get than writing "U.S. dual nationals owe allegiance to both the United States and the foreign country (or countries, if they are nationals of more than one). " in official communication?

Sure, you might start here. Some tidbits:

In effect, the more disrupted the family, the greater the likelihood of running away. Youth living with both biological parents were least likely to run away, followed by those with at least one nonbiological parent, those with single mothers, and those in other family structures.

...

The finding that females were more likely than males to run away was unexpected given results from prior research showing that males are more likely than females to have spent the night in a shelter, public place, abandoned building, outside, underground, or in a stranger’s home. In that study, however, youth were not asked directly if they had run away, and some may have had other reasons for being away from home, such as family homelessness. It also is possible that female runaways are more likely to stay in locations not included as response options in that study, such as with a friend or acquaintance (sometimes known as “couch surfing”). Although perhaps less dangerous than other destinations, couch surfing still constitutes a risky environment for youth. Future research should investigate gender differences in patterns and contexts of runaway behavior.

In other words, there is some information available, but for the most part researchers aren't drawing the lines we're drawing here, which is what I mean when I suggest that the statistics on these things conflate a great many complicated and distinguishable events.

Software spell check (on early computers at least) required a cute algorithm --- the Bloom filter --- to work reasonably efficiently. Actually checking each typed word against the whole dictionary wasn't (and likely isn't) practical, but a statistical guess of correctness is good enough.

I think it is probably worth thinking about how in the U.S. we are on the receiving end of a very successfully propaganda apparatus arguing that working hard and having pride in your job is stupid and pointless. Sure it's generally framed in something like "working for the man" or "capitalism sucks" but it is very successful, and past generations with similar views (ex: hippies) had quite a bit of pride in the endeavors they actually got up to which helped avoid this.

It's killing what makes America... America (and yes for the right excess immigration without cultural assimilation isn't helping).

I remember the days where you were more likely than not to find a helpful worker in a retail store. Those days are gone.

People have no pride in themselves or desire for excellence. It's sad.

In medicine it gets very gross because doctors still have that vibe but a lot of nurses do not and the ones who become NPs are often the worst. I've stayed late hundreds of times because I had the right skillset, I didn't want the night team to get swamped and so on. NPs just walk off.

Interestingly enough, using a computer is a mitigating circumstance, doing the same without a computer, network etc carries a penalty of two to 15 years.

At first glance this sounds wrong, but I'm not sure I'm actually upset that trying to "lure a child" IRL (effectively) is considered worse than typing into the Ethernet on a keyboard.

On Friday I printed the second draft of my NaNoWriMo project for the missus to read. She's about halfway through it, and so far the feedback has been guardedly positive. She's consistently said that it is neither boring nor cringe (my primary and secondary worries about it, respectively) and that the prose is, for the most part, very readable.

Who are they?

Average and representative members of Homo sapiens species, who see "milling around" - walking or standing doing nothing - as the best thing in life.

The hope of making few bucks while standing around is just a bonus.

He's not banned.

including romantically involved peers

If that includes people over the age of 18 then we're largely talking about the same thing. I imagine most of these people aren't pimps and they definitely don't think of themselves as sexual predators either way. If any stats are available about this general subject I'd be interested in them.

I feel like they're blowing their load too early on the Newsom stuff. If the pivot came closer to a primary cycle I'd back it but I feel like he's giving himself too long acting like this without getting boring, cancelled or both

No cybersecurity expert should be worth this PR disaster.

Optics! Think about the optics!

Maybe they feel that in modern time, when scandals come and go with lighting speed, when public with attention span of gnat stops caring once last hour's breaking news rolls out of screen, worrying about "optics" is no more necessary.

Maybe they are right.

As an example, deployed US soldiers and others stationed in allied nations often get processed by the American (UCMJ, as appropriate) justice system. It's obviously unfortunate when it happens, and sometimes leads to local protests and upset local officials, but at the high level neither side sees it as worth ending the arrangement (historically, "better US troops than Soviet ones", I'm sure). See the death of Harry Dunn in the UK and various incidents in Okinawa and Germany.

I'm not here to defend the process, merely to note that it happens.