Seems like they upgraded their abysmal 40Gbps peering, tho.
229 karma · joined September 27, 2023
For actual research mathematics, there is no reason why an AI (maybe not current entirely statistical models) shouldn't be able to guide you through it exactly the way you prefer to. Then it's just a matter of becoming honest with your own desires.
But it'll also vastly blow up the field of recreational mathematics. Have the AI toss a problem your way you can solve in about a month. A problem involving some recent discoveries. A problem Franklin could have come up with. During a brothel visit. If he was on LSD.
> it is very very clear, that the atheletes were custom fitted into the altered squirl suits
Aren't the suits tested for compliance on the athlete?
> trained specificaly and extensivly in there optimal use. traditional ski jumps were done with the legs fully closed, with a last second switch to a landing posture
I honestly don't see this.
I've looked at quite a few videos now, comparing the techniques between other jumpers and their medal winning jump.
It looks close enough to me and, honestly, plenty of experts, too, otherwise they would have pointed to the difference in techniques enabled by the altered suits, rather than only having to rely on finding alterations after taking the suit apart.
The article mentions a 5% surface area increase potentially offering benefits, but that's A LOT and if the suits had been altered in that way, surely someone would have noticed?
Also someone took a "secret" video of the suits being altered?
I'm sorry, but this doesn't pass my smell test. I don't doubt the suits having been alerted, but I highly doubt this having been done or ordered by the athletes who used those suits. And neither any of the team members, acting in favor of these athletes.
.
Winning gold is nice, leaving an auditable trail behind, almost certainly causing them to be stripped of their achievements, career, reputation, livelihood and opportunity to pursue their hobbies for an uncertain minimal gain, isn't.
- Project leadership being at the whims of the moderators
- Language complexity
- Openly embracing 3rd party libraries and ecosystems for pretty much anything
- Having to rely on esoteric design choices to wrestle the compiler into using specific optimizations
- The community embracing absurd design complexity like implementing features via extension traits in code sections separated from both where the feature is going to be used and where either the structs and traits are implemented
- A community of zealots
I think the upsides easily outcompete the downsides, but I'd really wish it'd resolve some of these issues...
Also lobotomized LLMs ("abliterated") can be a lot of fun.
I'd suggest a very different approach, expanding on the methodology of sites like "Here is the evidence" and "Ground Truth":
1. User asks question
2. If there are multiple possible matches, show them to the user and ask him to pick one, or, if not yet available or the matches are insufficient, ask the user to create a new request for clarification (including gathering some of the information he might already know, like involved people, approximate location, approximate time)
3. Once a specific event has been identified, show the user a summary of the event, a likely evaluation of his statement/question, a summary of all distinct positions on this topic and a list of the evidence gathered "here is the evidence"-style (but archived links..., and including a confidence rating)
4. If no good information is available yet, give the user an option to be notified via email or app or whatever when that changes
.
Upon a new request for clarification of an event being made (and this request not being merged with an already eisting topic):
1. Create a new entry, which does not yet make any judgement
2. Start looking up the event online, gathering neutral, relevant and easily available information like: Publicly known people present, relevant public locations (e.g. hospital victims were brought to in case of accident, location of event, involved agencies, nearby points of interest, nearby events), time, weather (helicopter crash during fog? Protest has low attendence during cold temperatures?), timeline leading up to the event (e.g. Presidential schedule, event happening after people leaving major sports event?, previous treaties), relevant laws and regulations, ..., basically everything major reports about the event think of as relevant and some basic other information (e.g. like the weather)
3. Update the entry with the information and ask people seeing it to gather additional evidence, maybe even provide commentary if applicable.
4. Notify relevant volunteers to gather additional evidence (ranked by living in the area, speaking the language, have specified this topic as an interest of theirs, have claimed that they have relevant abilities (e.g. access to sattelite images, participate in certain networks, ...), some randomly selected, ...). Maybe to avoid spamming anyone, default to sending a weekly list.
5. Depending on ressources and interest, keep gathering evidence on your own periodically
6. Gather evidence for the evidence. Plausible? Additional angles? Picked up by officials or involved people? People contesting it?
7. Give people the tools to contest, rate or ammend evidence. Through 6 and 7 eventually build a whole tree / graph of evidence and commentary.
8. Analyze the evidence where possible and relevant. Rate how significant it is, how controversial, how relevant (to legal proceedings, other evidence, logical conclusions) and how accurate (includes a spin? outright faked?)
9. Reduce the evidence trees down to a summary of the primary evidence. Summarize all the provided commentary, articles, etc. for each evidence into multiple distinct opinions.
10. Summarize all the primary evidence summaries and summarize all the evidence opinions and commentary on the main topic into distinct view points on this topic.
11. Update the entry with this information. Make a judgement.
12. Notify all those interested in the topic.
13. Periodically reevaluate if new updates / evidence becomes available. Periodically update those interested on major changes (or even minor if requested by those who are interested)
Some of them are incredibly hilarious, but the author is just way too productive.
Even when the moon is finally settled on, I guarantee you that nobody will make any effort to clean it up and throw it away.
It is truely sad that we can be sure that even thousands of years in the future, despite millions of humans looking at it every day, people will rather put a glass box around it, so nobody is bothered by it, than just tossing it into the lunar landfill.
A short mail mentioning what you intent and asking for permission is enough
Russia has taken quite a bit of damage, too (although it's tiny compared to Ukraine).
But most importantly: No matter who ends up responsible for the costs in each of the cases, both countries need a clear way to full recovery.
Otherwise you're just going to end up with an East-West Germany situation at best or an Mexico-US situation (cartels, crime, human trafficking, smuggling) at worst.
> Sanctions so far have done nothing to deter Russia.
Because the price the sanctions imposed were lower than the price not continuing would have.
If the price is simply staying at the table and keep talking, even minor sanctions would get the job done.
> Russia would never come to a peace agreement which legitimately had potential influence on them not being able to invade again. Because their goal is to invade again, after the peace deal.
I honestly dont understand why so many people hinge their entire position on this.
Russia has been warning about the situation we've got right now since at least 2002 and VERY explicitly since at least 2007.
Why do so many people keep ignoring everything Russia has talked about for decades (CFE treaty, NATO expansion, OSCE format failure, ongoing military escalation and lack of security guarantees) and just jump straight to:
Putin likes land and Putin wants to rebuild the USSR.
There isn't even the slightest sliver of evidence for this, infact quite the opposite:
- Putin could have easily kept Georgia in 2008
- The nations east of the Caspian Sea are infinitely easier to integrate into Russia, but no such efforts were undertaken
- Belarus could have been integrated into Russia much more easily, too
- There were plenty of very pro-Russian governments in Ukraine, Putin could have utilized to tie Ukraine politically much more closely to Russia with the intent of taking over in the future
> Either you overpower them and show effectively that you have overpowered them, or they keep coming.
Just the bloody opposite. The Russian mindset puts the security of the nation first. If you attempt to overpower them, they will keep escalating until either side becomes incapable of fighting.
Which is an incredibly dangerous course to take against a nation that is sitting on the Soviet nuclear stockpile.
And yes, the nukes work. All (except NK and Israel?) nuclear nations keep regular inspecting each other's nuclear arsenals for proper maintenance and functionality. And nukes are VERY simple weapons. The by far most complicated component being the conventional explosive chain involved and nobody questions Russia's capabilities on that part.
> while at the same time have some sort of uncensored LLM spewing random justifications for why they are invading
Agreed, except for the "uncensored" part. It's heavily censored, just in a very ... unconventional way.
It's hard to imagine who came up with these talking points:
- Satanist necromancers raising the Nazis from their graves
- Supersoldiers being bred in secret laboratories
- Caveman drawings having been found depicting Ukraine and Russia as one country with Moscow as its capital
.
On the other hand, everything said since the 2022 invasion is hardly to be taken seriously, since all official diplomatic dialog broke down.
Describing Mozilla's derailment as "charitable activities" is like describing the Mexican cartels as "self-help groups".
Never forget their "We need more than deplatforming".
Without Russia and Ukraine agreeing on how to end this war, split the spoils and salvage the little that's left, outside parties will hardly be willing to commit to enforcing the peace.
Ideally a solution can be found that wont make Ukraine (or Russia) dependent on the mood of an outside party, but if that's realistic is questionable at best.
I think the phases of negotiations could look about like this:
1. Cease and freeze the conflict
1. a) Build a framework for rebuilding Ukraine and Russia
2. A third party establishes with both sides the format of the upcoming negotiations.
3. Both sides find partners backing them, establish their minimum positions and ways to compromise on them without giving up on them (e.g. if territory can't be regained, shared management and dual citizenship for the people living there might be possible)
(4.) The neutral third party, together with the partner countries of both sides establishes sanctions for violations during the negotiations.
5. Very messy negotiations on the outcome of the war
6. Even messier negotiations on a security framework between the two countries
7. Mudslinging contest on security framework involving all relevant parties
8. Sign peace deal.
9. Try to toss aside Ukraine, get reminded what you agreed to in 1. a), regret ever having agreed to that extortion racket
Well, either I'm outdated or just plain dumb.
Over the years I have amassed solid evidence that it might be the latter, tho.
I do not know what keeps governments from doing this, tbh.
But up until now Russia has done so exclusively in a retaliatory manner.
Or them paying their debts to the clearing houses, despite US citizens having been forbidden from accepting their money.
Same with the EU not outright taking over Russia's currency reserves, but taxing them at 100%.
There's something that prevents governments from screwing around on this, even if I do not quite understand what it is.
And the US gov is probably quite high up on the list of entities not to mess with.
> And in any case Russia could just make an offer to share the minerals themselves, which they already did.
Sure, but it's not about the minerals at all. The relation between minerals and this deal is about the same like the relation of a pineapple tree to pizza.
> Historically Russia has repeatedly demonstrated willingness to harm their economy in return for gaining more territory.
Or for no reason whatsoever. But it's not really fair to compare the Communists or the Tsarist Empire to modern Russia.
> The most important thing to Ukraine is - how can we make sure that Russia doesn't invade us again. Everything else is worthless for Ukraine, for the West, and for Democracy.
Ukraine needs to work on this with Russia.
Russia has made clear that they want security guarantees themselves, so a universal solution might be viable. The problem being, that Russia doesn't feel threatened by Ukraine, but those backing it.
There is a strong argument that the Ukrainian President looses a lot of powers when his term ends under martial law, but negotiating international treaties is not one of them.
The Ukrainian constitution doesn't explicitly allow for the President to remain in office under martial law, but it does not allow for pretty much any elections and doesn't provide for a transfer of power as it does under other circumstances.
It also requires the office of the President to not be vacated.
.
So, the transfer of power that would occur under an irregular vacancy from the President to the Prime Minister likely occurs to the President himself if his term ends under martial law?
At least the riot shields were put to good use, right?
Sure, not what Trump likes.
But what Zelensky was wearing did have very little influence on the outcome of the meeting at best.
People dislike Zelensky having been called out on not wearing a suit, I merely explained why Trump puts importance on this.
We don't know if Trump called out Musk on not wearing a suit and what Musk's response might have been.
Overall the importance of wearing a suit is quite low, not at all proportionate to the outrage of Zelensky being called out for not wearing one.
> Trump has no stable “attitude” toward anything whatsoever except whatever he thinks accrues him more power and wealth, full stop.
How would Zelensky wearing a suit help Trump to further this agenda of his?
> He’s a well known germaphobe who will let a child wipe snot on his work desk
Yes, he is. But he tries to hide his actions resulting from that. Like getting behind something like a chair and wiping his hand on his suit.
We don't know if he cleaned the desk afterwards.
What, in your opinion, would have been the correct action he should have taken against the child?
The deal was quite good. It basically coupled the rebuilding of Ukraine (and ownership shares resulting from it) to a fund, rather than the government itself.
If Russia had then taken over Ukraine, they'd have to expropriate the fund to gain any benefits, but that'd also mean expropriating the minority ownership of the US.
> Trump called Zelensky a dictator, which is far more disrespectful than anything Zelensky has done.
Sure, but he is, and that's a huge issue for any negotiations going forward. Ukrainian martial law only delays parliamentary elections, not presidential ones.
If Zelensky doesn't either get a democratic mandate or recognized as an official negotiator by the Verkhovna Rada, any agreements made with him can later just be rejected by Ukraine.
That's kinda what the deal is about, tho:
1. Ukraine gets rebuild, the US and Ukraine own huge portions of Ukraine's new industry through the fund
2. The fund gets richer and richer with Ukraine slowly taking over management, the US retaining a minority portion
3. Russia attacks Ukraine, captures all of it
4. Nearly all remaining industry and rights to natural ressources are retained by the fund, managed by Ukraine's exile government
5. Russia wants to expropriate the fund to cut off the funding available to the exile government
6. Russia realizes they'd have to expropriate the US government, starts sweating
7. Russia wakes up and decides not to proceed with step 3. to 6., because the downsides of taking over a country (insurgency, tons of explosives everywhere, new huge portions of population on expensive welfare and healthcare, ...) aren't worth it without any of the upsides.
> Issue is about not having any security guarantees.
Because they're not even negotiated yet. The "minerals deal" is something the US and Ukraine can negotiate right now, so it's on the table.
For all the other stuff Russia and Ukraine need to come to the same table, which Ukraine is very reluctant to do.
Trump only tried to get Ukraine to agree to a bare minimum ceasefire, to stop the killing.
Everything else is up to negotiations afterwards.
It's really just a Ukrainian sovereign reconstruction fund, with the option for the US to buy its way in. Also the fund is financed through Ukraine's natural resource extraction.
The crux being:
No one else can buy into the fund. So if Ukraine is rebuilt and then disappears from the map, the US pretty much owns the fund, together with whoever is recognized as Ukraine's exile government, and with it a huge portion of Ukraine's industries.
So even if Russia were to take over Ukraine, all the money making stuff is still co-managed by the fund.
And since Ukraine is the exclusive financial benefactor of the fund, whoever takes over Ukraine ends up facing an exile government with an utterly ridiculous budget.
And if they wanted to just expropriate the fund, they'd have to expropriate the US gov, too. Good luck with that.
.
The fund is a REALLY good idea, but the way it's sold to the public and Ukraine refusing to agree to it is ... odd at best.
Steel has the nice property of turning into any product with but a stern look, titanium torches your factory down if it doesn't like the air quality during its massage sessions.
It's all about establishing a semi-sovereign fund for Ukraine (slowly turning fully sovereign, due to how it's financed), focused on reconstructing Ukraine.
If you buy a Russian nuclear power plant, Rosatom takes care of absolutely everything.
If you buy a powerplant from anywhere else, you've got to juggle hundreds of various contractors and companies at various stages.
So if you've built your system, there will be only very few fuel suppliers left, whose fuel product is approved for usage with all the components.
And if one of those suppliers has problems or goes bankrupt (since nuclear fuel is an aweful product to make money with: Very low numbers, extremely strict regulations, very expensive handling and processing, a very unstable and slow growing market, constantly new requirements and all of your customers have huge legal teams and deep pockets), you're going to have a lot of difficulty finding a replacement.