Yes, you do, they just don't tell you because why would they talk about something they either have zero interest it, or a past where they believed but then figured out it wasn't believable anymore for them?
Most of the time it's a good thing. I've freed up a few doors in my time and discovered that I should have left them alone, as they weren't making noise, and now having less friction they tended to drift into a less desirable spot where before they would stay put. Sometimes friction is your friend.
I guess too young for Feynman's sitdown discussion on why magnets are how they are, but maybe in a few years you can blow their mind with the idea that magnets repelling each other is very much related to why things feel solid to us. Or Sagan's bit about how atoms (and thus matter itself ) are mostly nothing at all.
GOP is all about free market, right? So let the free market decide who wants a model that gives out information that is weighted in one direction or another. If you want accuracy, you aren't going to buy into a model that skews things in a different direction. Oh right, they only talk about free market when it works in their best interests...
It's a good idea, since Lemmy and the rest are being searched through by Google and others. However one of the things often discussed is how hard it is to find things on the search engines that have been pulled from Lemmy, so we're not quite seen yet as a database resource for AI and such. But again, better to start now, as Fediverse places are being mentioned more and more by the mainstream.
The question is, how best to do this, and which data? Just personal, or try to obscure anything you submit in discussion?
They definitely are other places as well to varying degrees. Some of it is just human nature and how our brains are wired to feed the ego when we believe we're "right", otherwise we wouldn't have a history of constant disagreement, war, etc. over stupid stuff. The fundamentals of street epistemology is useful for any topic, from politics to religion to pseudosciences. It's even helpful as self-validation, which will show how hard is can be to question your own beliefs, and maybe help understand how others can get caught up in thinking a certain way without actually thinking about it.
The problems with CO2 traps aside from them emitting yet more CO2 (every bit counts) is that it's something you have to constantly resupply, most of the CO2 is wasted because of how it works, wind can affect its performance, and it uses energy, so isn't all that passive. Attacking the larvae stage in various ways is a better method. And of course reducing or eliminating any standing water where they can breed, although there are species that use damp soil.
Street Epistemology. The reason it works better is because it avoids confronting the person with a conflicting viewpoint and setting their defenses up. Instead the interest of what and why they think something is true lets them try to justify it, and (sometimes) that digging by themselves leads to a reevaluation. Even if it doesn't work the first time, it can plant a seed of doubt about their world view that they didn't have before (because they didn't think too much about the WHY).
If that route is taken and they're okay with the lack of validation of their own thoughts, there is nothing you can say to them to break out of that. They're fine with the lack of facts, so how can facts change anything? As the saying goes, "you can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into", however like I said, you can give them something that might cause a break over time if you help them start a crack. But only they can do that.
I haven't seen any news yet on a cause, but honestly with this last week my first thought was that Elon put Grok in charge of the network infrastructure, and well...Grok went oops. And then like any good LLM, lied about what happened.
There are probably things created in supernova explosions that we couldn't think about creating due to the energy required, but like our manmade ones, they decay very quickly so we'd never know of their existence. So as far as stability, the periodic chart is probably pretty much complete.
They're right. Greenhouse gases don't endanger people. In fact, life would be difficult without greenhouse gases present.
It's the production of an overabundance of greenhouse gases that's the problem. Humans started the imbalance, nature is adding to it as things warm up. Nature will do what it will do, it's up to us to get leadership that understands a head in the sand doesn't change anything.
I think with a few changes it would be a better movie. Less screaming, a bit of a different ending and who survives. There's some good parts though. I've seen people complain that the one scene with the birds is convenient and forced to make Cruise's character important, but the soldiers were busy trying to get people out of the place and wouldn't have necessarily noticed what he did. Note that once they understood, they took action. Also RIP the one guy who almost made it.
The model isn't going to help there, then. I've been messing with some of the whisper variants like faster-whisper, also tried an older one called nerd-dictation, haven't yet found one that doesn't creep in garbage from time to time. And of course you have to make sure the data the VR is getting is clean of noise and a good level. It's tough to troubleshoot. The advantage is that LLMs might be able to pick through the crap and figure out what you really want, if there's enough trigger words there. I even had an uncensored one once call me out on a typo I made, which I thought was hilarious. But getting 100% accuracy with so many places that can error is a challenge. It's why I suggested finding or making (!) a fine tuned version that self limits what it responds to, to help put another filter to catch the problems. Ironic that the dumber things work better by just not doing anything when the process breaks.
Having used Voice Attack on the Windows side, the same thing applied. It wasn't that VA or Windows were better at picking up a voice command, but a matter of setting the probability of a match for a command low enough to catch a partial hit, while high enough to weed out the junk. So that's probably the goal here, but that gets into the coding for the voice recognition models, and I'm not good enough to go that deep.
Rhaedas @ Rhaedas @fedia.io Posts 1Comments 3,128Joined 1 yr. ago
Anything is possible in a simulation.