I just do not understand how anyone is on the fence about DJT... Like, they see this conviction and that's what changes their mind? After everything else?
I just do not understand how anyone is on the fence about DJT... Like, they see this conviction and that's what changes their mind? After everything else?
Join the club.
That we're able to dodge the incoming wave of fascism and peacefully skim board into progressive politics.
Hahaha, as someone that works in AI research, good luck to them. The first is a very hard problem that won't just be prompt engineering with your OpenAI account (why not just use 3D blueprints for weapons that already exist?) and the second is certifiably stupid. There are plenty of ways to make bombs already that don't involve training a model that's an expert in chemistry. A bunch of amateur 8chan half-brains probably couldn't follow a Medium article, let alone do ground breaking research.
But like you said, if they want to test the viability of those bombs, I say go for it! Make it in the garage!
Conservatives are just projectors. Everything they are guilty of they blame on political opponents or demonize: pedophilia, gay sexual relationships, corruption, and not caring about the average worker. That's not to say Democrats don't sometimes fall into these categories, but it's definitely to a lesser extent.
I would argue that "the right to vote is fundamental to a democracy" has never been an American conservative ideal. Conservatives have always tried to limit the number and kind of people that can vote and still do: non land owners, ex-slaves, black people, women, ex-felons, and all minorities now. Conservatives have also made a very successful effort to limit the relative power of people's votes when it doesn't suit their agenda through gerrymandering and unequal representation.
Also, really not sure what "the Senate should represent the states and not the people" means. Like it should represent the land? Not the people inside the state?
There are others that don't get the coverage, but yeah, pretty fuckin lame anyway. If only for the fact that they don't get the coverage.
I'm an AI researcher and yes, that's basically right. There is no special "lighting mechanism" portion of the network designed before training. Just, after seeing enough images with correct lighting (either for text to image transformer models or GANs), it will understand what correct lighting should look like. It's all about the distribution of the training data. A simple example is this-person-does-not-exist.com. All of the training images are high resolution, close-up, well-lit headshots. If all the training data instead had unrealistic lighting, you would get unrealistic lighting out. If it's something like 50/50, you'll get every part of that spectrum between good lighting and bad lighting at the output.
That's not to say that the overall training scheme of especially something like GPT-4 doesn't include secondary training operations for more complex tasks. But lighting of images is a simple thing to get correct with enough training images.
As an aside, I said that website above is a simple example, but I remember less than 6 years ago when that came out and it was revolutionary, so it's crazy how fast the space has moved forward in such a short time.
Edit: to answer the multiple subjects question: it probably has seen fewer images with multiple subjects and doesn't have enough "knowledge" from it's training data to accurately apply lighting in those scenarios. And you can imagine lighting is more complex in a scene with more subjects so it's more difficult for the model to use a general solution it's seen many times to fit the more complex problem.
This is such a drunk, stupid tech bro idea.
People should have "the right to not be pregnant."
I responded to your other comment, but I like this question too. I haven't been addicted to a substance, but I can firmly say for other things that the answer is "No". I'm not blacked out, I'm completely present when I'm making this choice, but sometimes there's a constant justification of "ok I'll do it this last time and tomorrow is when I'll resist it." And you keep doing that. And that voice gets weaker over time to where you just start accepting that this is what you do now. And that often comes with self-loathing and frustration.
Lol you don't get to be rude if you apologize first.
Using this.
I agree with him. You have to take measures to protect the populace, like with traffic laws. If people can't abide by those rules and the science is sound (which it is in this case and in the case of traffic laws), then measures have to be taken to protect the community from those that refuse to abide by the verifiably safer option without due cause.
What those measures are can be deliberated amongst the community. Could be fines, could be jail time. I don't know what would compel someone to get a vaccine, but that could be determined over time.
Depression for me.
Nope, doesn't matter why, I'm just flabbergasted that people would still be like "hmmm I dunno, maybe this Trump guy is alright" after everything else. And I'm trying to imagine the psychology of a person that's on the fence about him for this long.
It's easier for me to understand the rabid fans and fascists than it is for me to understand those that are up in the air until now, so I was just throwing that out there.
Well, that's the difference. At different points in my life I've had varying levels of self-control. You have a higher bar than I do right now for what requires a self-control check.
My username is what it is for a reason. I don't think being on a site like this improves my health or mentality in any way, yet here I am. I still go on Reddit on a desktop when I'm working almost out of habit, even though I'm kicking myself mentally the whole time I'm scrolling. I wake up, say "30 more minutes" to myself knowing full well that will make me start work later, less prepared, hungry, and unshowered and I'll have to work later into the night (when I work from home). I watch YouTube until 1 am or later most nights because I don't want to sleep even though I'm tired and I know it will make my day miserable tomorrow. Dishes are piling up because I say I'll get to it later.
People have different thresholds for this and at other times in my life I could just shut off many of these urges. Right now, because of my mental health, that ability for self control is near zero. Just think of that push-back you get when you say to yourself you're going to go for a run and imagine that push-back to be stronger and applied to literally anything that requires effort or mental presence.
I'm not surprised. Alito is straight up huffing Newsmax like it's paint but trying to hide it, Clarence Thomas is outwardly corrupt and unabashedly fascist, and the other conservatives are, weirdly, not as extreme and still attempt to maintain this air of professionalism and integrity in their profession. Don't get me wrong, they don't actually and in them we have a religious nut, an idiot frat boy, an egoist, and at the head, a conniving political operator. All of which are driving us closer to fascism in their own style.
But I get the feeling like John Roberts is embarrassed by Clarence Thomas and his clinically insane QAnon conspiracy wife or Alito and his "election was stolen" flag antics. So they're going to see things differently.
Nah, if it's in the city (or in a small town with 4 lane roads and low speed limits), you'll see semis use the left lane for the same reason I do: the right lane stops a lot due to right turns.
Focus groups aren't meant to be used for gaining an understanding of a broad swath of the population. Focus groups are used for exploratory research, concept testing, and understanding the "why" behind opinions and behaviors.
If you want to generalize trends towards large populations, you're going to need a large sample size. It's statistics that suggests that many respondents will leave you with extremely low confidence in the outcome.
For example, if you are trying to judge the voting preferences of a population of 100,000 people, you'll need 383 randomly sampled people in a survey to reach a 95% confidence interval. 13 is nowhere near the amount of people required to cover those that considered themselves "independents" before the debate.
That's not to say this tells us nothing, but it's by no means a predictive study.
*edit: I actually would say it's harmful because I think that it portrays the narrative as if it is predictive, when it's not.
!remindme
Is this not deployed already? If it isn't, what the heck are we doing?
Huh, I've never thought of this before... I like your example of chit-chat. Because for some instances, you could say that one engages in it to manipulate the other person into relieving their own anxiety from being silent around others. Or forcing the other person to give up their personal interests, or, more cynically, making the other person think you are interested.
I've never thought of communication like this before but now I'm going to manipulate everyone in real life into thinking I'm a know it all by telling them this lol
The people of Wyoming don't have the same representation as the people of California. They have way more relative representation. That's saying that rural votes mean more than urban. A Wyoming resident has 3.6 times more voting power than one in California.
This is a similar argument for accelerationism in Marxism. That we should make the world as capitalist as possible because the system will fail quicker and get replaced by something more just.
It's hard for me to believe that this would actually work in either case. The destruction in the meantime would be too great and it may reach a point where we can't climb back. In the case of Trump, he wants to be a dictator, and he may push voting rights so far in one direction that the people won't have a say at all.
See this is a sensible response to people getting unreasonably PO'd about this. You drive in "the left" (whatever that means to your relative position) until someone faster comes along and they can't move more left than you.
I get upset when some fuckwit is going 15+ over the flow of traffic and then that fuckwit gets pissed when he runs up on someone's ass expecting them to be aware of every dangerous fuckwit out there.
No. I wish I could stay awake forever sometimes.
He's my hero! I hope he's still getting something out of life as he's in Brazil with his wife. A true heartache knowing that his time here is coming to an end, because for as long as he could, he was still commenting on international affairs. A warrior for the truth, and I'm going to miss his commentary.
Yeah, that's a good point. I was trying to be too agreeable with the last guy but I think understanding the psychology of everyone that votes for trump, is enthusiastic about Biden, is on the fence for either of them is important. So we can potentially counteract that
I find this scenario extremely rare as in most cases I'm envisioning, there is a middle turn lane separating the two opposite lanes. Either from a light or just as a buffer between the flows of traffic.
This is all to say, there aren't any hard and fast rules and there are too many scenarios to cover with a blanket statement like "The left lane is for passing. If you're not passing somebody, move over to the right lane. It's not that hard people" (comment above).
victorz said it more succinctly below.
Depends who you are. If you're a person of interest to the Russians for any reason, I wouldn't trust it.
I don't think it's lane surfing if you're not changing lanes. Anyway, this comment section has made me realize that it always just depends. Drive aware, keep safe distance, don't unnecessarily change lanes, let people pass (on the left) if they're going faster than you, etc.
The best advice I ever got about driving was "be predictable." I think if anyone really takes that to heart empathetically then it would be safer.
I know cardboard and especially aluminum is much easier to recycle, so doesn't just have to be plastic.
This looks great! I imagine the documents you upload are used for RAG?
If so, do you also show citations in the chat answers for what context the model used to answer the user's query?
I ask because Verba by weaviate does that, but I like yours more and I'd like to switch to it (I've had a hard time getting Verba to work in the past).
Just to be clear: you're saying your solution is to vote for Trump though?
I'm definitely not for banning books, but couldn't you say the same thing about news media? Or Facebook memes? Those "get you to think".
Tough shit Zuck