appleorchard46

This mentality is generally frowned upon in the US. Aside from Native Americans, nobody has any more inherent right to live here than another; everyone either immigrated here or descends from someone who did. Thinking otherwise is seen as backwards at best. There's a Ronald Reagan quote I'm quite fond of that encapsulates the perspective:

> America represents something universal in the human spirit. I received a letter not long ago from a man who said, 'You can go to Japan to live, but you cannot become Japanese. You can go to France to live and not become a Frenchman. You can go to live in Germany or Turkey, and you won't become a German or a Turk.' But then he added, 'Anybody from any corner of the world can come to America to live and become an American.'

Who's to say which mentality is better, but, don't be surprised if you get a lot of pushback from people from the US when you talk about maintaining ethnic purity as it has only negative connotations here.

I don't know the first thing about electric infrastructure, but for there to be a single point of failure like this just seems bonkers. I suppose the country's shape is partially to blame. I wonder what could have caused this.

> This should be your reminder that economic sanctions really does nothing but starve ordinary people to death while doing nothing to the ruling regime and, in many cases, strengthens support for it as those enacting the sanctions are (with merit) seen as the enemy.

This is predicated on the idea that the problems NK citizens face are due to lack of total resources, not misallocation of resources by the ruling government.

I have a hard time believing that the same regime which continues to pour resources into military spending and lavish living for its higher-ups as its population starves would allocate further resources toward anything else. If there was a sensible limit on inequality it would have been reached long ago.

Fun fact: one of these was adapted into a first person action RPG for Nintendo DS. Balance is pretty wonky, but it controls well, and there's something novel about seeing a game that looks somewhere between Daggerfall and Morrowind on such an underpowered system.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=QvLxVnWpQhs

Typically under $10 a day. Lots of vegetables and paying attention to prices.

Yes, this is exactly what I meant. There are many different interpretations of the original comment in these replies but you're spot on here, thank you for articulating it better.

Well, yes, I suppose that is what I'm saying. Kudos for the perspective.

I think what it is, is that it's murky whether perfect pitch is the ability to name notes, or the capacity to learn to be able to. Historical thinking has mostly been that the two are the same, however I'm referring to it more as the former whereas you're referring to it more like the latter.

So I guess the point I'm trying to make is that the two aren't the same, which is more or less what's being supported by the paper. People might have the capacity to learn the ability (as the 'listen to a song in your head' exercise I described aims to demonstrate) and think they don't, because the common perception is that if you don't have the ability you don't have the capacity to learn it. Or something like that.

This is literally what the paper we're commenting on is challenging. The source for that claim in Wikipedia (Levitin & Rogers) is expressly addressed in the paper.

I'm not sure what you mean.

> Absolute pitch (AP), often called perfect pitch, is the ability to identify or re-create a given musical note without the benefit of a reference tone. [Wikipedia]

This is what I'm describing: knowing a song well enough that you can 'hear' it in your head, and use that to accurately identify and re-create a note from it. This is a few more steps than being able to simply 'know' a note upon hearing it but nonetheless can demonstrate the capacity to do so for those who haven't specifically practiced it.

That's not what I'm talking about. I'm referring to songs you know intimately enough that you can sing a capella (or at least hear in your head) in the right key. Edited original comment for clarity.

This might not be something you personally can do, but for those who have memorized a song in that way it's a convenient way of demonstrating that perfect pitch isn't as unattainable as it might seem.

If you're really asking what the point of humor is, I don't think there's any answer you'll find satisfying. I'll take a stab at it though.

In this case, it functions as a hook; it's there to give you a slight chuckle before diving into a long and relatively dry informative article. It's some clear sarcasm makes you evaluate the supposed assertion made - that people who push for IRB evaluations are meanie-heads - and challenges any preconceived notions you might have of it being a simple "this is good" or "this is bad" thing either way because of course it's not that simple. This invites the question to the reader: if it's not as simple as that, then how is it actually?

Of course, if the tone doesn't land and you read it as a factual statement - and, importantly, it's so distasteful that you immediately bail and don't read the rest of the article to see what it's actually about, and just assume it's a petulant tirade against IRBs - none of that works. If you're at all interested, I would recommend reading some Adam Mastroianni / Experimental History posts, as it has a very similar feel but plays to the strengths of the tone a bit better (IMO). This one [0] actually touches on the use of humor in scientific papers, and I think makes a pretty good case for why clinical language isn't necessarily a good thing.

[0] https://www.experimental-history.com/p/the-rise-and-fall-of-...

The perception of perfect pitch as this magical, unattainable thing always seemed odd to me. Not surprised this reinforces that it's mostly about memorization and practice.

Think of a song you know best, one you've listened to hundreds of times: can you sing it or hear it in your head pretty accurately (edit - not accurate intervals, but accurate pitch)? If so, congrats, you have the capacity for perfect pitch. Learn what note it starts on and you're 1/12 of the way there.

It is briefly mentioned in the notes at the end that nobody has seemingly ever been prosecuted for this, and the laws are primarily aimed at institutions doing shady stuff rather than individuals wanting to feed their friends potatoes. But yes, the focus definitely isn't on that side of things.

I don't think it's fair to call that a deficiency, though; both the letter of the law and the practical applications are complex and interesting topics in their own right(s?), and either could fill a lengthy article as we see here. Both are welcome! One doesn't preclude the other. I would be interested in reading an article covering what you describe too.

It's intended to be an amusingly simplistic strawman in order to contrast with and highlight the actual (deeply) complex reality described thoroughly through the rest of the article.

They don't actually think anyone who suggests IRB approval is very mean and very bad, that line really isn't the thesis statement. If you read a bit further I think you'd be less annoyed by it.

This is addressed at a few different points in the article, I found this bit particularly insightful:

> So what happens in practice is politicians write a vague law. Bureaucrats turn that law into very detailed (but often still vague) specific rules. Those rules might or might not be “legal”, but nobody want to risk fighting them in court. If the regulations are particularly ridiculous or likely to be overturned if challenged, prosecutors may quietly stop bringing cases. But the regulations still sit there on the books. And people still usually pay attention to them, because why risk it?

On the one hand, this seems like a completely nonsensical, pointless change for the sake of change that has no tangible effect on UX.

On the other, something about the particular gradient used makes me deeply uncomfortable. Just obvious enough to catch your eye, but indistinct enough to make you feel like something's wrong with your eyes.

A change that accomplishes nothing and a change that degrades the experience are in theory mutually exclusive, yet somehow this feels like both.

What a great idea! I don't use Chrom(ium) so I can't speak to the execution but this is a really nice use of AI.

I see a lot of negativity in the comments but I think there is potentially some value in this, if I'm understanding it correctly. Some people (me) find the procedural parts of a job that you cannot prepare for in advance the most overwhelming aspect - moreso than any actual programming.

That being said, there isn't enough here to get any real idea of what it offers. Getting feedback early is good but this is too early.

Why did it get the works, anyway?

I think this takes too much of a sort of top-down approach. Many broad statements are made about what LLMs are and aren't - some positive, some negative, some well-substantiated, some less so - when there needs to be a greater focus on fundamental knowledge of their inner workings and (im)practical uses.

The title being a question implies it will teach you to answer the question yourself. But it feels more like you're expected to enter with the belief that they're oracles, and this is here to convince you they're bullshit machines.

I don't care which one it is! It doesn't matter if we call what they do logical reasoning or not, because either way it doesn't help to give a full understanding of their actual capabilities.

Much of the language surrounding this course makes me think the intention is a grounded view. If that is the case though, this misses the mark. Rather than educate on the reality of the situation, I fear the use of it would only exacerbate the principles-first approach seen all too often in discussion around AI. More accurate principles than most perhaps, but principles nonetheless.

> Whether you come to that conclusion through numerical analysis or by looking at a graph is immaterial, but, at least for us meatbags, drawing a graph is highly effective.

This is what I was trying to say - some things that are extremely helpful for humans (i.e. making graphs) might not be as necessary for AI, so asking a question and expecting a response contingent upon the particular way humans approach a problem is unlikely to get the results desired.

This is true, but I would replace 'intelligent expert' with 'intelligent human expert'.

Graphing data to analyze it - and then seeing shapes and creatures in said graph - is a distinctly human practice, and not an inherently necessary part of most data analysis (the obvious exception being when said data draws a picture).

I think it's because the interface uses human language that people expect AI to make the same assumptions and follow the same processes as humans. In some ways it does, in other ways it doesn't. Expecting it to be the same as a human leads to frustration and a flawed understanding of its capabilities and limits.

These posts about X task LLMs fails at when you give it Y prompt are getting more and more silly.

If you ask an AI to analyze some data, should the default behavior be to use that data to make various types of graphs, export said graphs, feed them back in to itself, then analyze the shapes of those graphs to see if they resemble an animal?

Personally I would be very annoyed if I actually wanted a statistical analysis, and it spent a bajillion tokens following the process above in order to tell me my data looks like a chicken when you tip it sideways.

> However, this same trait makes them potentially problematic for exploratory data analysis. The core value of EDA lies in its ability to generate novel hypotheses through pattern recognition. The fact that both Sonnet and 4o required explicit prompting to notice even dramatic visual patterns suggests they may miss crucial insights during open-ended exploration.

It requires prompting for x if you want it to do x... That's a feature, not a bug. Note that no mention of open-ended exploration or approaching the data from alternate perspectives was made in the original prompt.

Exactly - you can only add so many inner matryoshka dolls before they're not big enough to sustain critical mass.

If HN is a subset of other sites (though arguably its approach to UX and moderation offer something different), a site targeting a subset of HN's users seems unlikely to get much traction.

The problem with 'HN but for [x]' sites is that what they offer is just a subset of HN. Game dev posts might not be the most popular here, but they're still allowed and do get some traction from time to time - so there's little incentive to post somewhere that has even fewer eyes.

IMO for a site like this to succeed it needs to offer something HN doesn't. Chat, subforums, personal promotion section, something.

Very cool! I was just needing something like this for my Defold game, this looks way better than my hacky solution.

Semi-unrelated - you say you're using tables as keys in your project. I didn't know you could do that! What are you using it for?

Running a Lemmy instance is a nightmare. Putting aside the questionable Lemmy community, the software takes an enormous amount of resources and is incredibly finicky, always some new bug. The end-user UX is rough, and god forbid you ever want to try to improve it by adding a new feature or improving any existing ones. Not to mention federation woes - it doesn't work reliably in the first place, and you either have to only federate with a select few strictly moderated instances (and abide by their rules yourself), or risk spam and illegal content getting stored on your server.

I'm bitter because I really want to love the fediverse. I fully support the principles behind it, but making an ActivityPub-based server is less like adding RSS to a site and more like running a WordPress site with a bunch of iffy plugins. The relative popularity of the fediverse shows that there's a market for non-corporate social media, but the protocol has fundamental issues that really limit it. Hopefully someday the community can rally around something better.

Clickbaity headline and correlation v causation discussions aside, this tidbit is particularly interesting:

> MRIs measured brain activity while the participants undertook seven tasks designed to test emotion, reward, motor function, working memory, language, relational or logical reasoning, and theory of mind or social information processing.

> The researchers found that both recent and heavy lifetime cannabis use was associated with a statistically significant reduction in brain activity only during the working memory task.

So, as far as emotion, reward, motor function, language, relational or logical reasoning, and theory of mind or social information processing go - no correlation between cannabis use and brain activity in those respects was found? Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence of course, but it's interesting that significant effects were found with memory and only memory.

Interestingly your description of social cues you expect to pick up on are the exact sort of social cues I struggle with. If someone says something, generally speaking I expect it to be true unless there is an issue with it that suggests otherwise.

I suppose the wide range of negative and positive experiences people seem to have working with LLMs is related to the wide range of expectations people have for their interactions in general.

It makes the horrible things the Nazis did even more horrifying. It's easy to think of the Nazi regime as a pure, isolated evil, but when articles like this show that there was room for even a little humanity, it makes it clear how many individual choices for evil were made elsewhere every step of the way.