Isamu

Fairly steady trends since 2000 with a drop during covid, America becoming less popular for Europeans and Americans

Copyright has a lot to do with what we as a society want to protect and encourage. We want to protect an author that put the hours into creating a book, as opposed to the person creating a copy of that work. The person copying can claim they put in work too but the claim is not strong enough to override our preference to protect original authors.

Part of the problem with generated works is that it is lower effort like the person copying something. It’s not an activity that demands special protection like original authorship. I believe this is a large part of the reasoning.

I recommend the Asianometry channel, he has a good series of videos about ASML, TSMC, chip fab supply chain, the Japan photo resist monopoly, etc

https://m.youtube.com/c/Asianometry/videos?ra=m

More posts please relating to conservator tech or websites. Thanks.

When written horizontally it is now left to right but earlier you would see horizontal right to left. But vertical was preferred especially in the past.

You can see horizontal train stop signs written right to left in “In This Corner of the World” anime. Today all signage seems to be left to right.

[edit] The history section in Wikipedia explains that this was a postwar script reform. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_writing_system

Yeah it’s just meant to be funny, in a haha-been-there kind of way. It’s an example of Asperger’s -like thinking, overly literal. My friend was embarrassed in front of his gf, and he learned what indirect speaking was.

Indirect speakers don’t know they are speaking indirectly. They get upset with literal people, because “how could you not know what I mean? You must be a jerk!”

I have found that people who speak indirectly don’t agree that they are indirect, have no idea why you think they are not direct. It’s so ingrained it can’t be seen.

I have extreme examples from friends, where somehow they “hear” the opposite of what I say because they are always looking for the indirect meaning, not what you are saying.

Fun example from a friend: his family were extremely direct but his girlfriend’s family was very indirect. As a young naive guy he was having dinner with his girlfriend’s family and her father asked: “is there any salt” and my friend looked up at the glass salt shaker and said “yes” and continued with his meal.

>Without private property to accumulate or a state apparatus to capture, the reasoning goes, there would simply be nothing left to be corrupt about.

Right, it becomes mostly the corruption of power, and the lengths people will go to in order to retain it. It’s astonishing that is not recognized as a problem.

>Our safest robotics model yet Safety is integrated into every level of our embodied reasoning models. Gemini Robotics-ER 1.6 is our safest robotics model to date, demonstrating superior compliance with Gemini safety policies on adversarial spatial reasoning tasks compared to all previous generations.

The safety guidelines are interesting, they treat them as a goal that they are aspiring to achieve, which seems realistic. It’s not quite ready for prime time yet.

Well you have to ask why fines aren’t working. In Meta’s case, recent revelations show that they make choices based on how much they stand to make by refusing compliance and just paying the fine. They decided the fine was small relative to the billions they made. A fine could still work but it needs to reach maybe unprecedented punitive levels.

That’s helpful. So instead of a much larger test matrix you are using a model to reduce that to the most likely candidates, right?

Everything with LLM-style AI is brute force. I don’t think people care, unless there’s a new data center going in next door that’s incredibly resource inefficient .

There does not appear to be one in this robot, from what I am able to read about it. I think sometimes people assume there must be something like that to help balance.

This generalizes fixed 2-wheel dynamic balancers which mostly don’t have flywheels for stability either, the focus is on the dynamics of keeping the wheels under the center of gravity, or a bit offset when moving.

The novelty here is about switching between dynamic control policies while keeping them simple.

Foul! No such thing was claimed.

>But war, war is something fascists value intensely because the beating heart of fascist ideology is a desire to prove heroic masculinity in the crucible of violent conflict (arising out of deep insecurity, generally). Or as Eco puts it, “For Ur-Fascism there is no struggle for life, but, rather, life is lived for struggle…life is permanent warfare” and as a result, “everyone is educated to become a hero.”2 Being good at war is fundamentally central to fascism in nearly all of its forms – indeed, I’d argue nothing is so central. Consequently, there is real value in showing that fascism is, in fact, bad at war, which it is.

It’s hard to see but & is literally an e and a t conjoined. Not a ligature exactly

Art is always left undefined. This is a feature, not a bug.

I agree, I’m an old dude too. For personal projects I do what I like. I also like carving stone and wood the hard way, just because.

At work though the hype sucks the life out of the last part of the job that some people found enjoyable, because complete control is enjoyable. Personally I think work is just doing what someone else wants, rather than pleasing yourself.

They see the American experiment of populism as validating, and the fact that in America it is mostly been pulled off by bunglers is interesting too. And the fact that you can get such traction with very few ideas and mostly just labels like “woke” makes the whole thing seem like magic.

That Pepsi can is from the days before aluminum cans. And the pull tabs all separated completely. You would see thousands of those pull tabs everywhere you stopped your car, especially where you least wanted to see them, like in National Parks.

Hey, in a/b testing the bot that ordered kale salad was far less popular. People wouldn’t use it! So we carefully considered the customer needs.

>All that "foreign aid" wasn't for charity or the goodness of anybody's heart, it was to keep the "3rd world" aligned with US foreign policy objectives.

You are not familiar with “win-win”, it did in fact fund a wide variety of charity out of the goodness of people on the ground who were motivated to help people. The justification for people saying “why are we doing this” is that it serves US interests to be a benefactor.

It was not a monolithic psyop to trick people, it was funding helpful programs in return for goodwill, and not that expensive to boot.

It was killed because we want tax cuts NOW and this is not a tax cut.

Apropos of Feynman on computing, the story of his time working at Thinking Machines Corp https://longnow.org/ideas/richard-feynman-and-the-connection...

“For our first seminar he invited John Hopfield, a friend of his from CalTech, to give us a talk on his scheme for building neural networks. In 1983, studying neural networks was about as fashionable as studying ESP, so some people considered John Hopfield a little bit crazy. Richard was certain he would fit right in at Thinking Machines Corporation.”

You mean could you get it down to a low enough frequency? Hmm I guess you can get down into audio frequency but maybe the amplitude will be tiny, you probably want a piezo mechanism that will give you more of a rumble.

>brute force search of the solution space

“Brute force” is mostly what makes it all work, and what is most disappointing to me currently. Including the brute force necessary to train an LLM, the vast quantity of text necessary to approach almost human quality, the massive scale of data centers necessary to deploy these models, etc.

I am hoping this is a transitional period, where LLMs could be used to create better models that are more finesse and less brute force.

For me writing code is clarifying ideas, it’s an important part of the process. Sometimes you start to see a radical way of simplifying what you want, that only happens if you are willing to transform what your requirements are if they turn out to be overly prescriptive.

I think though it is probably better for your career to churn out lines, it takes longer to radically simplify, people don’t always appreciate the effort. Plus instead if you go the other way, increase scope and time and complexity that more likely will result in rewards to you for the greater effort.

>who checks the sources

I do, when I’m reading something and accuracy matters. Anybody who cares about accuracy will investigate the sources. I know people will complain that “nobody” does this, but it is essential, without checking sources you are just casually reading. That goes for books and all media consumption. If a book or any media (ahem Tucker) doesn’t give you enough information to be able to look something up, that is rather a red flag of obfuscation.

The Factbook dates from a time when this was the most convenient source of updated concise summaries of all countries. It didn’t necessarily go into great detail except for countries important to the US national interest. This has been eclipsed by Wikipedia, the information there is far more comprehensive and govt officials will go there to make updates and corrections.

Is there some redefinition of “average” going on? What are LLMs but a statistical representation of likely speech? What is generated except some likely and plausible output that seems to fit the bill? At what point is average exceeded?

Surely we can do better than reading TFA and manually commenting on it.

Same, except I am over 60 and when I think of opening a mobile food cart it is sort of a Blade Runner vibe, staffed by a robot ramen chef that grumbles at customers and always says something back to you in some cyber slang that you don’t understand.