bitshiftfaced

There are some other transformer based models on the GIFT leaderboard: https://huggingface.co/spaces/Salesforce/GIFT-Eval

> It’s also mighty interesting how it’s always the male division that’s open, until you happen to have a sport where women are beating men at it, and then suddenly it’s the women’s division that’s the open one!

Hypothetically you could have three divisions: open, men, and women. In many contexts it's more practical to have two, where one is open. In those cases, if the sex that didn't win more was also the open division, then people would complain because both divisions would be dominated by players of one sex.

Quoting this without context, people might think someone from the case said this about the expecting mother. Instead, this quote comes from a law professor (that the author interviewed maybe?), who was, I guess, projecting the thought on to those of the legal system. The author kind of stuck this right in the middle of the story, so I don't blame readers if they confused the quote with someone from the trial saying it.

I have no doubt that blackberries will go this direction because it's annoying to get seeds stuck in your teeth. On the other hand, compare the fiber of blackberries (8g in one cup) to modern grapes (1g in one cup).

It depends on the season, but they tend to have too much acid at first. Leaving them in the fridge reduces the acid over time improves the flavor profile. But really you should refrigerate all citrus.

There are dekopon trees that give fruit with the bump and without the bump. You may be finding the ones without the bump. But satsumas have a different enough flavor that you should be able to tell. Also, satsumas are smaller, more oblong, and tend to have a thinner skin.

Similarly, the Tango variety is becoming more commercially available. It has a zipper peel, seedless, and outstanding flavor. It's usually marketed as "Mandarin", though. You kind of have to know what it looks like to be able to tell what's a clementine or not.

Others to watch out for are Gold Nugget (my favorite, but I very rarely see them at the store), and I also saw Kishu at the grocery store for the first time this year.

I disagree. It shows that the policies that they put into place gave them resistance to whatever it is about the pandemic that reduced scores everywhere else. As the article laid out, Alabama didn't just keep doing the same things.

People who responded as "very conservative/conservative" was 36% in 1992 and 37% in 2024. https://news.gallup.com/poll/655190/political-parties-histor...

"Very liberal/liberal" has increased though (at the expense of moderates).

> that almost everyone should take it

I can see why every vegetarian should take it. But if you eat meat regularly, your creatine stores will be at a level where you'd probably only see a cognitive benefit at times of sleep deprivation. But if you're regularly sleep-deprived, then you'd do best by addressing your sleep issues.

Pie in the sky idea: users sign up and deposit to an escrow. If after x years, the user has been married to another user on the site for 1 year without being divorced, the matching site receives the funds. Otherwise, the user receives their funds back.

Might also work with using the users' registered home addresses instead of marriage. There are ways to game it and ways to make it less game able, but you get the idea.

"Social media" doesn't just mean Facebook right? It includes sites like Hacker News, yeah?

Ice cream / milk has saturated fat, which is something that people who are watching their cholesterol might want to limit. Fat helps slow digestion, which is beneficial for the glycemic index. It depends on the ice cream too. Steel cut and rolled oats' glycemic load is not that bad, especially when eaten with berries, nuts, etc.

Also, using ice cream as the benchmark is misleading, as people might view it as a junk food and think that its glycemic index is higher than they otherwise would, but actually its glycemic index is low/moderate, depending on the type.

From the article:

"Science’s analysis found that reductions in force, or RIFs, accounted for relatively few departures in 2025. Only at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, where 16% of the 519 STEM Ph.D.s who left last year got pink RIF slips, did the percentage exceed 6%, and some agencies reported no STEM Ph.D. RIFs in 2025."

What's the correct level of STEM PhD employment in the government? Maybe those levels were way too high. But on a different note, we can't tell from the article what normal fluctuations look like. It only shows 2024 as the baseline, but ideally we'd look at a larger window than that as well as look at the percentage rather than nominal figures.

You have it turned upside down. The analysis is of people's beliefs. In other words, the underlying data is created from the beliefs of the people who trade it, and the analysis is taking those beliefs and applying it to a specific question.

I was referring to European cars sold in the US compared to US cars sold in Europe.

The imbalance comes from how VAT and US taxes work differently. A European car comes to the show floor free of VAT. A US car likely has sales tax still embedded into the costs, and tariffs get multiplied on top of it. I'm not saying that it's anyone's "fault", but it is an advantage for countries that have VAT.

And you could say the same about the tariffs mentioned in the article.

Just a realistic thing. Or, a good thing for consumers, a bad thing for producers (and a bad thing for producers who are actually consumers in disguise of a desired lifestyle and/or status).

The same dynamic that propped up blacksmiths, potters, tailors, etc.: the absense of scaling/automating technology. There is still demand for authentic artisanal crafts and the "good feeling" that these people can earn money, but the magnitude has been reduced to the farmer's markets.

I can see a similar thing playing out with music. There will still be some token demand, but people will not pay the same when they can have a magic, infinitely producing on-demand, tailored-to-their-taste music machine, at vanishingly small marginal costs.

In other words, the current system allows a select few artists to make money/fame from doing something they want to do (opposed to have to do to make a living). Or also, AI music will lessen the good feeling some people get when they believe that musicians can make money producing music.

I don't disagree that these things exist, but I do believe that these are mostly propped up by dynamics that will soon no longer exist.

There are well-known negative side effects. What are the side effects to listening to AI music? If there are negative side effects, then I'd guess they'd be shared with non-AI music, since they sound pretty close to the same by now. Or, maybe the "negative" side effect from the industry's perspective is that the price of listening to music will drop.

Doesn't topping a popularity chart mean that it was "good" at least to many people?

The article is dated today. If Grok's policy changed already, then the article's author is missing something important.

Are people still able to do the things this article says you can do with Grok? I know that was the headline several days ago. I haven't really followed this story too closely to know.

> certain groups of online warriors are convinced she is the one who is sick because of the "women are weak and can't do man work" trope.

Care to point to anything specific that leads you to believe this?

> So keep that in mind when people are demanding transparency.

Why should the (possible?) existence of online groups have any bearing on public policy like this? Probably for many policy decisions, we can find some online group that would spin it a certain way in their minds. That doesn't mean we let it influence our decisions one way or the other. Or to be precise, not any more than what the proportion of the voting population they make up would imply.

I'm not sure exactly what you're asking. What I meant was that, for example, before you might've needed to track down where to find the underlying research paper, then read through the paper to find the relevant section. That might've taken 20 minutes for a task like this one. Now you can set an LLM on it, and get a concise answer in less than a minute.

It's ok to change your mind. Kind of a lame move to go digging through someone's history to try to prove them wrong like that.

Contrast this with taking the headline as fact without further scrutinizing it, which happens often. Or, look at the other posts here that are assuming that the cohort was restricted to only those who lost weight.

In an informal conversational context such as a forum, we don't expect every commentator to spend 20 minutes reading through the research. Yet we now have tools that allow us to do just that in less than a minute. It was not long ago that we'd be justified to feel skeptical of these tools, but they've gotten to the point where we'd be justified to believe them in many contexts. I believed it in this case, and this was the right time spent/scrutinization tradeoff for me. You're free to prove the claim wrong. If it was wrong, then I'd agree that it would be good to see where it was wrong.

Probably many people are using the tools and then "covering" before posting. That would be posting it as "fact". That's not what I did, as I made the reader aware of the source of the information and allowed them to judge it for what it was worth. I would argue that it's actually more transparent and authentic to admit from where exactly you're getting the information. It's not like the stakes are that high: the information is public, and anyone can check it. Hacker News understandably might be comparably late to this norm, as its users have a better understanding of the tech and things like how often they hallucinate. But I believe this is the way the wind is blowing.