bena

Yeah, I don't miss being a teenager, I miss that unique combination of low responsibility and high possiblity.

Yes, but it's a way to say "Oh yes it will". Or even "Challenge accepted".

It's acknowledgement

I was about to say that it feels so much earlier than that. But then, 2016 was a whole decade ago.

To think, the main impetus was mostly to see if it could be done. And to show Microsoft why you don't expose things like that to the public. Microsoft said "She'll learn from your conversations" and the internet said "Bet"

Did this one become a Nazi as well?

Yeah, one of the Viper docks was a gift shop.

They even had to essentially recommission a Viper that was being used as an exhibit.

You're halfway there. It's a little more messed up than that.

IIRC, this is all little-endian. So assume our 8 bytes labeled A-H. For a 32 bit/4 byte integer, they will be read as DCBA. For a 64 bit/8 byte integer, HGFEDCBA.

So the struct is set up like a = DBCA, b = HGFE. So when we assign 2 and 3 to a and b, it should look like this in memory:

00000010 00000000 00000000 00000000 and 00000011 00000000 00000000 00000000

When we cast that to a uint64 and assign 4 to it, we should wind up with:

00000100 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000

Which effectively zeros out b.

So if the conditional is evaluated, it will evaluate to false, we return b, which is 0.

If the conditional is not evaluated, we should return the value in a, which is 4.

Have you been to a live sports event?

What's happening in that time is just random bullshit. They'll run bits on the jumbotron, hold raffles, go play games with people in the stands, etc. All sponsored by "<SO AND SO>, the official <THING> of your <LOCAL SPORTS TEAM>". Or, in other words, ads.

You could show the players and coaches on the sidelines, but that's also rather boring. It'll be a couple of guys shooting the shit on a bench, or a couple of guys hunched over a table, or some guys warming up.

The best thing they can do is like information from other games maybe.

I don't believe there is a true believer. I believe Sam Altman is the rule for these people, not the exception.

It's amazing that apparently the best way to save as much suffering and future lives as possible involves giving them obscene wealth and ignoring the very real problems we are dealing with today.

Once again, I've said it elsewhere here, I think we could have nipped this thing in the bud if when the first "effective altruist" started talking about the EV of saving billions of "future lives" vs dealing with today's real problems, someone looked at him, cocked their head to the side, and said "That's fucking ****".

All of those magical future people do not get to live if we bake the Earth today. The best way to take care of future people is to take care of people today. And if they were truly serious about taking care of future people, that's what they would be doing. But it's not, they're just collecting resources. I don't know how the fuck Sam Altman owning a Koenigsegg Regera today helps save 20 quintillion lives in 40,000AD. Deeply unserious people.

Is he the one the proposed that airgapped models could still communicate with each other via CPU temperature?

If so, he's the person that's made me lament one loss the progressives took from us. I think there's one phrase that we should be allowed to say regardless of the fact that it is also used to refer to certain groups of people. Because the insult comes from the comparison, not the language itself. Every time we update the language, we just use the new word as the insult. And I don't think we're allowed to use the word here.

But sometimes, you just have to look at someone, cock your head to the side, and say "That's fucking ****".

It brooks no argument, it offers no sympathy, it just tells the other person that they should be ashamed for speaking those thoughts aloud.

I'm unsure. I believe I've seen Telemundo at certain events, but they could have deals to rebroadcast and they'd have the same options as Paramount+. They can run ads over the broadcast ads and swap the audio feed with their own. The broadcast feed should have at the very least; a video feed, a crowd/stadium audio feed, and the commentary audio feed. So they could just not rebroadcast the commentary audio and replace it with their own.

Who is "they" in this situation?

I noted that the streaming service, like Paramount+, would be able to overlay their own ads over the broadcasted commercials, but they won't have control over the cameras. That's on the broadcast station, they're the ones controlling the remote production.

Paramount+ can only rebroadcast what my local CBS affiliate is broadcasting.

I think only Netflix and Prime have deals to actually produce sports broadcasts.

Does uBlock work on commercials aired as part of a stream/broadcast? I don't mean where they interrupt the stream and insert an ad, I mean that it's part of the video produced.

I genuinely don't know and am asking out of curiosity.

No, there's nothing really to do. They aren't producing the feed, they're essentially hosting a stream from another broadcaster.

For instance, if you have Paramount+, you can watch sports broadcast by your local CBS station through it. That station is going to be running commercials, Paramount+ has no input on it. The most they can do is run ads over their ads.

I'm assuming there's something similar with Disney+. You can watch your local ABC broadcast or ESPN broadcast of a game, but you're just getting that broadcast as being currently aired.

But even for broadcasts wholly owned and controlled by a streaming platform, like Thursday Night Football on Prime, there are just times when it would be dead air. I don't entirely mind commercials in that instance. Nothing else is going on.

One of the most egregious examples of this that's happened to me was with the DVD set of the second or third season of Mad Men. One of the unskippable pre-menu ads was for the next season.

And I didn't know what to say. Either I like the series and I'm going to buy the next season or I don't and I won't.

I like to say "taxonomy is bullshit".

Taxonomy is essentially building a metaphor or analogy. It's useful at times, but it often breaks down when you start looking at it too hard.

Take everyone's favorite example: the tomato. We get into all sorts of discussions about what is a fruit, a vegetable, botanically or culinarily, etc, etc. Ultimately realizing that all plant matter is categorized as "vegetable" on the most abstract level. Thinking that one more layer of taxonomy will neatly box everything.

But it won't.

We call the iPhone a phone, but is it? I can call people from my laptop, my tablet, etc. I can watch videos and play music and write notes on my phone. Everything is everything, and nothing is what it is.

Classification is one of the hardest things because it's entirely a fuzzy problem.

Plausible abdication of thought.

We put 2 + 2 in our calculator, we get 4. We've spent decades pushing computers as accurate. Making them accurate. We trust the machine and the process to give us the right answers when we put in the right data.

So when we disagree with the computer, we doubt ourselves.

Fear of a Black Hat, a rap mockumentary in the same vein as This is Spinal Tap, begins with a warning about the language in the movie that's essentially them repeating the offending words three or four times.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_fmaaZtINRU

I think this leads to an interesting question. What happens when the money runs out?

Right now, a lot of money is going to train new models. And we need to train new models because they get gated by their training data. And models are only as useful as their training data.

So let's say the money stops.

Do we stop training models? Do we train them slowly? Do we accept the then current models as the limit?

This is literally "We have investigated ourselves and found no wrongdoing"

Why should we trust them?

If I were the band, I’d do the same.

I would not want the potential fallout of the when the AI tool goes sideways. Or stupid requests. Etc

Let meta handle redirecting band questions to the proper account.

To be fair, they don't have many levers to pull

If I’m encoding video or running a database, sure.

But the OS should be as lean as possible because the entire reason is to run other programs.

That's exactly what happens.

The life expectancy of a person who lives to 18 increases dramatically across the board.

You even see this today. If you live to 70, you can expect to live 14 to 17 more years. So to about 84 on the short side and 87 on the long side.

However, make it to 75, your life expectancy is 11 to 14 years. Which is 86 on the short side and 89 on the long side.

Basically, the longer you live, the longer you should live, but eventually the range collapses. And that's because people come in under the average all the time. Some people die at 71. And those people stop getting counted when determining life expectancy at 75.

I died at 1 in Mesopotamia in 3966 BCE of dysentery.

They did it though.

And I didn't say it would be easy, just possible.

I think that's some of the disconnect for some people. They think that simply because a thing is possible, it should be easy.

I don't necessarily disagree.

But this is getting rather forest for the trees.

End point is: If you don't like who is making your software, make your own. Giving up is just letting them win.

A little bit sorta.

Conservatives will come out to say that you can't force JK Rowling to be pro (or even neutral) on the trans issue.

Now, they'll also say that certain people shouldn't be allowed to create. Or at the very least create based on certain properties. Which is admittedly almost a "same result, different mechanism" issue.

But they will claim to allow the market decide (aka "go woke, go broke").

If he feels that way, he feels that way.

However, if you don't like the creator of Brave or Ladybird, and you don't believe Google or Mozilla can be trusted to make a browser that respects privacy, giving up is just ceding to those forces.

Like, make a browser. Make it with people who do share your values. That's exactly what Andreas King and the Brave people did. That's what DHH is doing.

If they're right about anything, the "anti-SJW/DEI/Woke/'politics'" groups are right in that you cannot demand creators share your values.

If you like Harry Potter, you have to deal with JK Rowling. There's no way around it. You have to reconcile that with your morals. You don't get to demand that she supports the groups you want her to support in order for you to enjoy her content guilt-free.

So your options are, don't use those browsers, or make your own. You have that ability.

And yes, you, singular you, cannot make all the software. But you can make something and you can find others with your values and eventually you can build a network and that network can build all the software. With values that you can support.

* I know I talk a lot about browsers, but that's just the example. This is applicable to everything.

Are you actually reading my responses?

I’m saying the formula is immaterial. It’s also about being able to produce at scale, market, and distribute.