b112

Maybe gold was already cheap. Maybe a gold coin was as silver to you and I.

I think I'll have Claude do a deep dive and research into this report, then release a paper on it.

(This goes under the theory of 'the more capacity you have, the more capacity is used' concept, and so, within a few years, we'll have 100 page reports on musings like this, instead of a two or three line post)

Context means everything.

The title is false too, it's "some guy claims"...

EG, the gatekeep is 'already should get a ticket or something'.

I actually oppose all cameras, and think we should just have more police in the streets. It's how policing used to be done. Human judgement.

I also can't read the actual numbers for the lighter shades of green, there's not enough contrast.

This may seem unimportant, but some of these models are tiny, others huge. If you have a specific task and the #1 model is a 180B MoE, you maybe can't run that. So you may want to look for smaller models, with high scores.

Lastly, the order of the models on the graph, isn't the order of the models discussed. Which makes the graph less inline with everything.

With this degree of disconnect on how to present even the most basic concepts, I question the author's underlying logic in how they test even.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/March_1989_geomagnetic_storm

Supposedly, they've hardened things, lots of info on what they've done here:

https://news.hydroquebec.com/news/press-releases/all-quebec/...

I have zero idea of 1989 vs the event in 1840 though.

I wish I had your belief in sensible logic like that.

But I suspect you're wrong, even though you shouldn't be.

However no view exists in a vacuum, and I will indelibly view my example of a group of 4 as a valid statement, about the absurdities of 'walked on the land once in my life, to get to my summer/winter home', compared to some claims of a tribe of a few hundred people, somehow owning hundreds of millions of acres of land, just cause they walked on tiny parts of it to get to their seasonal homes.

So no, I don't see the relevance, because I'm not discussing the concepts therein directly.

Of course, the land in question was effectively open forest/plains, isolated with no cities and almost no one living on or around it. And if it remained as so, by todays standards, would be worth often dollars per acre. Meanwhile, we're attributing dollar amounts to land which only became valuable, because it was developed by some means.

While I am not directly answering your question, I frankly find the 'cut off' period to be quite weird. Everyone on the planet has ancestors which have been displaced, AND have displaced peoples. We're both the conquerors and the conquered. For example, I have Scottish heritage. Where's the payment for the land the English stole from my ancestors? And for the English, where's the payment that the Romans owe, for the land taken from those in the isles 2k years ago? Or the French owe, when they invaded and hung out for a while?

Individuals were displaced, entire groupings of people slaughter or literally decimated.

It goes on and on and on, back through time, all owing all. Yet that is completely ignored, including endless land grabs all over the planet even over the last 2 centuries, but... oh well, significant compensation and land returns are only really given to those in North America.

I believe in fairness. And to me, this seems... off somehow.

Note that I said seasonal camping sites make sense. And I said treaties make sense. I simply said 'wandering about' doesn't convey ownership, aka 'possession'. To take such a notion to the extreme, imagine a grouping of 4 who rove all around the entirety of Canada and the US through their lifetime. You could easily do this over 20 to 30 years. Should those 4 be attributed possession? As owners of that entire landmass via treaty, or just prevent any use of that land by anyone else?

Absurd. And it is equally absurd that land used for travel between two campsites, basically as a road, should mysteriously convey ownership/possession too.

For example, typically there were winter and summer camp sites in the US. Yet when not doing so, Natives would often 'rove' from one of the other, think 'migration'. Yet I've seen ridiculous assertions that someone basically using the land as a road between two campsites, to conveys ownership. Sheer nonsense.

All those studies about GUI usability were done in the early 2000s. Before phones. When most people were just learning how to use a computer. The idea of options certainly was confusing, because "clicking on things" was even confusing.

Yet today, we have a populous which, more and more, grew up with computers. And loves to personalize. And wants options. So just keep that in mind, all you frontenders, config options aren't necessarily bad. Ancient studies have little relevance 24 years later.

Sorry to hijack a bit, but felt it was relevant to courses, teaching, and the state of time in 2000 vs now.

Seasonal camping sites make sense, more from a 'our land' perspective.

And naturally any signed treaties should be honoured.

You may say "But, they were here first!", yet that's quite false. Native Americans invaded as well, either subsuming or slaughtering existing populations as they did so. Further, Native Americans warred, fought, killed each other, just as Europeans, Middle Easterners, and everyone else on the planet did. After all, human is human is human, and that's (sadly) what humans do.

And if you look at every other country on the planet, the precise same is true. Locals pushed aside as newcomers invaded, whether the UK, Scotland, Russia, Germany, the Middle East, literally every place on the planet.

There is no peoples, no country, no ethic group, which has not over time invaded another.

There is no one alive today, that does not stand on land once called 'home' by another.

You may wonder why I say this, but instead of discussing a land plot inside a Western country taken over by another citizen, you immediately dove into Native American rights and a Middle Eastern conflict for some inexplicable reason.

Juggernauts do not have to be fast. And the judge has seen Google being intractable and sneaky with alternate app stores too:

https://www.theverge.com/policy/979852/that-is-not-acceptabl...

There is now a record of this. The next action against Google, will see people pointing out each step they took to avoid compliance.

A case a year down the road about AI, will see stubborn attempts to comply like the above cited.

Google, with the gold plated shovel, digging a hole for itself. Put another way, breaking up a company typically comes after other methods don't work. Such as being sneaky and making them not work.

Or even because the required competition didn't occur, regardless of fault.

It's not over. It's a step taken, with a positive outcome, and a judge who is making sure there's follow through. Next step will be more stark.

The speed of government is slow, incredibly slow. It's measured in election cycles. It takes government eight, twelve years to simply turn around and notice. But once it does, it's a juggernaut.

Nothing can stop it. Nothing can avert it. Nothing can prevent it. And as everybody from Facebook to Microsoft knows, once it starts moving, you're screwed.

In the US, the oil companies thought they were too big. Then the telco companies thought they were too big. What really happens is eventually people just get pissed off, and then it's too late.

Google is fast approaching that. They almost had chrome and other things ripped away from them, and now they've got requirements to have alternate play stores. If they don't turn course, and turn course blazingly fast, they're going to have their entire empire wrenched away from them.

Oh well.

If the predator is not breathing down your neck? You are watchful but ignore it.

Similarly, our ancestors and ourselves? We are social animals. We live in a pack. We share defense with our tribe. You and your neighbour will stand back to back, to fight off barbarians. Meanwhile, in parallel, we need to defend ourselves from members of our tribe. The very person who fights back to back with you, to save your community, may be your tribal competitor. Whether for dominance or breeding, we fight amongst ourselves. We know there is risk of our neighbour, our fellow community member attacking and killing us, meanwhile? We lay our head down and sleep.

We're designed to take low probability threats, and cast them off, and nothing is more low-probability than 'it will happen in the mysterious future'.

Global warming is as 'far off' thing. You may say "But this and this is happening!", and I agree! But I still live in my house, I still have grass and trees, I still have food, and so for most people "far off in the mysterious future" is a valid response.

If you can't see the enemy before you, it is easy to shrug away. If you cannot see the threat as impending, it is easy to ignore.

It's in our very nature. It's a requirement to sleep soundly at night.

At least, this is my take on 'far off' threats.

That's what it means. In Australia it can mean something different.

The real point here, is a lot of people today don't realize how supported they are, with medicine and the trappings of modern life. The simple things I've listed are quite literally a wonder, but to the modern human, often it's not even considered a big deal.

Even in a rural remote areas of Canada or the US, you can just get in your vehicle, drive for half an hour, and then suddenly be surrounded by tens of thousands of products to make you healthier. A city dweller can walk for five minutes, and have the same.

We are certainly much healthier, with the little trinkets we keep in our houses.

Some yahoo you don't know, posting a video of <thing happening> is useless without some degree of trust. So whether an established celeb on Youtube or actual media outlets, centralized reporting is going to become more of a thing.

When I was a kid, pre-internet, pre-camera, 'rumours' could be devastating, and were often wildly made up. Yet there was always this category of people who simple could not get through their head, that simply because someone hears something, it isn't therefore true.

This category of people still exists. And I think they'll be most hit by this.

The US has a crazier takedown regime, letting companies do this. At least in Canada it goes through a court, it's about your personal likeness, and you can contest it.

"Oh no that's sci-fi and decades away", I really don't think so. I think neuralink, and competitors too, will next move on to reading the visual cortex. They already have plans to push data to the visual cortex, to enable the blind to "see", reading in healthy people seems quite doable.

I expect something like this to happen before 2030.

Regardless, I agree for now? Yes. But the future? I don't see it as blockable forever.

There are two ways we decide how severe the punishment for broken laws is. One is to enable just punishment. The other is deterrent. This may fall into "deterrent is the bigger part of the sentence", where people posting private information receive years in jail as a result.

There is a little bit of a conversation about this here:

https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/other-autre/cndii-cdncii...

And the above certainly covers Meta glasses too.

I think it won't be long before it's the posting of non-consensual imagery that is so criminal, that few will do so. For years in Quebec, sharing of images captured in public isn't really legit. You control "images of yourself", regardless of where they are taken, public places or not:

https://educaloi.qc.ca/en/capsules/your-right-to-control-pho...

And they're so worried about problems with image sharing, they've almost automated the process to deal with it:

https://www.quebec.ca/en/justice-and-civil-status/support-vi...

So this is already being criminalized in a lot of places.

My frustration is likely just showing, on this specific topic.

It's foregoing cash for every single thing you do. That, combined with the telco selling data, Google linking that data to the number, and apps such as your banking app working in this same ecosystem, and companies such as Yodlee, your profile has a minute by minute location, plus what you spend and where.

It lets intelligence agencies, buying this data, create links between people. Who you know. Who you talk to. Where you go. What your hobbies are.

This gives the power of manipulation, for knowing who you are in the real world, combined with what you do online, means they know you better than you know yourself. And that's quite important, if you want to manipulate opinion.

All this may not matter to you, and if so, that's fine.

But this data is, quite frankly, what gives the Americans the power they have. The Americans aren't mighty due to guns, and weapons, and an army. They are mighty because of information.

Information is how you send a mere 40 dudes to kidnap the President and his wife from Venezuela. Information is how drone strikes perform targetted attacks. Information is how you manipulate elections in foreign countries. It's the sort of power that means you don't even have to fire a shot, to overthrow a government.

This information is what modern banking, and its apps, and companies such as Yodlee give to the Americans.

And as a Canadian, with the Americans blathering on about 51st state this and that, I am perhaps over sensitive to this fact. Because the last thing we need, is to give Americans power over us.

Any power.

Even the tiniest bit.

And information? Is more powerful than anything else they have.

The banks provide the data anonymized, but then provide means to de-anonymize it.

Your banking app is almost certainly using a company like (horrible and evil) Yodlee, which is given data by your banking app under the guise of "organizing your transactions into categories". Yodlee then quickly de-anonymizes it, by the identifiers which are identical and given to firebase, and various other orgs. Yodlee has been caught doing this before, and they still operate.

Lots of other companies do this, so if your banking app has any callbacks to anywhere but the bank itself, it's nothing but trouble.

After deanoymoization, such data is of course sold to everyone, including intelligence agencies, domestic and foreign.

And I will point out that "stop doing that" can be applied in both directions, towards AI and towards material supply.

And that this is one way, not even remotely the only way, that gene editing at home is easy.

Again, these are just facts.

Some questions...

Is it fair to restrict AI, or fair to restrict 1000 industries?

And if it is fair to restrict 1000 industries, OK, but there should be time to do so, probably? A transition period?

And if you do restrict, many such industries just make needed chemicals, which are used by endless other, non-threatening industries.

What of them?