ekleraki

Can you find a link that shows that ICE / non hybrid and non ev make up the majority of cars with automatic start and stop?

Again, mostly means majority and allows for exceptions.

Mostly means the majority and by construction allows for exceptions.

“Mostly” includes exceptions.

From the ąrticle [1] references [2]:

> fluoride intake levels (0.93 [0.43] vs 0.30 [0.26] mg of fluoride per day; P = .001).

> Children had mean (SD) Full Scale IQ scores of 107.16 (13.26), range 52-143, with girls showing significantly higher mean (SD) scores than boys: 109.56 (11.96) vs 104.61 (14.09); P = .001.

The average IQ of people in the UK is 99.12 and in Canada 99.52 [3]. Let us suppose that the hypothesis is true; it is expected then that in a country with higher average consumption of fluoride, we would, consistently, see lower average IQ.

> Above-average consumption of tea, as recorded in Great Britain, could result in fluoride intakes as high as 8.9 mg per day [4];

We observe that the average consumption of Fluoride is about an order of magnitude larger in the UK, yet, IQs are almost identical. Which hints that if such a relationship exists, it is not as pronounced (5 IQ points) as the article claims.

Maybe somehow women in the UK consume 20x less Fluoride when they are pregnant (what's the prob of this?), maybe people in the UK are just built different and their superior genes compensate and without the Fluoride they'd be at 104-105ish. Given history and similarity between societies, this looks unlikely.

So until a causal mechanism is found, I am inclined to disagree over the "proven fact" statement.

[1] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41390-020-0973-8

[2] https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/fullarticle/...

[3] https://wisevoter.com/country-rankings/average-iq-by-country...

[4] https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/jsfa.2740340...

Submission statement:

Given the comments on the psychological experiments conducted on Ted Kaczynski, I feel that sharing this experiment [again] is worthwhile. The following is an excerpt from the wikipedia page:

----

The Third Wave was an experimental social movement created by California high school history teacher Ron Jones in 1967 to explain how the German population could have accepted the actions of the Nazi regime during the rise of the Third Reich and the Second World War.[1][2][3][4][5]

While Jones taught his students about Nazi Germany during his senior level Contemporary World History class, Jones found it difficult to explain how the German people could have accepted the actions of the Nazis. He decided to create a fictional social movement as a demonstration of the appeal of fascism. Over the course of five days (or nine, according to student Sherry Toulsey), Jones, a member of the SDS,[6] Cubberley United Student Movement sponsor[7] and Black Panthers supporter[8] – conducted a series of exercises in his classroom emphasizing discipline and community, intended to model certain characteristics of the Nazi movement.

As the movement grew outside his class and began to number in the hundreds, the experiment had spiraled out of control. He convinced the students to attend a rally where he claimed that the classroom project was part of a nationwide movement, and that the announcement of a Third Wave presidential candidate would be televised. Upon their arrival, the students were presented with a blank channel. Jones told his students of the true nature of the movement as an experiment in fascism, and presented to them a short film discussing the actions of Nazi Germany.[9]

If we are being pedantic, transformers operate on integer vectors, and in the process turn them into high dimensional matrices.

Part of releasing AWS products to customers involves getting cleared by AppSec plus other compliance teams. The products are supposed to be ready months in advance before the AppSec and other teams start working on them.

For whatever reason I got flagged :')

> As an example, we're not far from some arguing against the existence of a great many people because an AI can objectively do their jobs better.

We are already here.

The problem is that everyone seems to take capitalism as the default state of the world, we don't live to live, we live to create and our value in society is dependent on our capacity to produce value to the ruling class.

People want to limit machines that can enable us to live to experience, to create, to love and share just so they keep a semblance of power and avoid a conflict with the ruling class.

This whole conundrum and complaints have absolutely nothing to do the models' capacity to meet or surpass us, but with fear of losing jobs because we are terrified of standing up to the ruling class.

> Ask it to solve novel mathematical and logic problems

How exactly do you define novel tasks and problems?

My brother has had it do his programming homework (he's a teenager), written in Greek mind you and therefore novel task to the first-degree, and it succeeded. Thus it solved a logic task [1].

I have had ChatGPT parse math I had written in LaTeX and reach a correct result, do modifications and so on.

> Further, an AGI should logically attempt to "improve" its understanding of the world during a conversation, yet chat GPT never initiates a topic or asks you anything at all (even to clarify what you mean). It also repeatedly reminds you that it is only a language model.

Anecdata: I asked Bing (GPT4) to answer a few stuff and it asked for clarification twice in a row. The fact that it repeatedly clarifies its prompt is not a limitation of the underlying model as much as it is a limitation of the interface that injects a prompt. Dan and all the other jailbreaks out there bypass that.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curry%E2%80%93Howard_correspon...

You are correct my comment did not make sense.

What I meant was that types may be inferred but that is not the same as dynamic typing.

I’d add that this is a great opportunity for OP to treat it as akin to “rustlings” or a possible analogue, where they break different functions that they know work, and building it up again s.t. the tests pass fine.

I am sorry that my messages have been misinterpreted. I wasn’t trying to gaslight or emotionally manipulate anyone. I didn’t imply that you are treating me differently either, and i am sorry my messages caused such feelings.

I was genuinely looking for something to hold on to, that the people I called fascists are just confused and manipulated into hating people like me.

You are right, you don’t owe me anything. But it’s beneficial to ask and search for “what we owe to each other”.

I hope I didn’t take away your capacity to believe in people and made you cynical.

It seems that at the beginning of the conversation i failed to follow Scanlon suggestion. Today is another day, today i will try to be better. We live, we learn we grow, we change.

Nothing I could express will ever be satisfying enough to convince, let alone persuade you into responding earnestly.

Whether you respond to me it’s entirely up to you… you need to choose to believe that people can change, as I have changed … you have to choose, despite all odds, to try to do the right thing, not just now, but every time, despite how difficult it may be, despite how disappointing the expected result may be, you have to choose to believe in people..

I have opened my heart, i have expressed my deepest fears.. I have been crying all the way from work to my home… i want to believe in people…

I want to believe that people can look past what makes me “different”, and look at me as a person struggling to live with their circumstances, trying to live an honest life and be a good person…

I am only human, I am terrified, and I am sorry.

I just want to live… for the first time I have a reason to and i am terrified that i will get beat or worse…

You have no reason to… you need to choose, to choose to leap into faith.

If you choose not to, I want you to know that I am sorry, and .. I understand why you chose not to. I’d have probably done the same.

I am asking you, as a trans person fearing for their life, how i should call the people i am terrified of, the people who seem to hate me for my mere existence without ever interacting with me, who have already decided that i am going to hell and seem to want to help me go there sooner.

I do have friends with different political beliefs. They don’t know about my “status”, they have expressed horrific comments about LGBT people without seeing the irony in the fact that said beliefs are learned and so i just dont say anything so as to not out myself.

I was politically on the “opposite” side of this, until somebody showed me empathy for the person I am, they helped me learn to love myself instead of hating my mere existence.

For the first time i have something to live for, and all i see is attacks against people like me on the rise. For the first time, I have something to lose.

I just want to live, unapologetically, for me as me, and yet i am terrified of the people who openly call for the murder of those just like me.

Do you know what that is like?

What am I supposed to do?

Just sit there and watch?

Enlighten me then, if not with the word "fascist", how should I characterize the class of people that apparently wants me dead, and as a collective exhibit all 14 characteristics of Fascism as defined by Umberto Eco?

Which word has sufficient gravitas to convey that I am genuinely scared about my friends in red states who can't leave? To convey the terror of hearing about yet another shooting towards people just like you?

Which word can I use to describe people who don't want me to live?

Which word can adequately describe the class of people that carry such vile acts or condone them?

What should I use instead?

No blanket statements made. I spoke about the GOP, referring to the leadership. No blanket labeling.

I merely continued the discussion from this context:

> sometimes you can't have nice things because there are people who will abuse them.

> there are actual Nazis out there who want to put people in ovens, so it's taboo to make jokes about how they may have a point.

> similar thing with trans people, you mention them and trolls come out of the woodwork saying they should kill themselves.

The fact that you keep claiming that my responses do not relate to the matter at hand indicate that you are willfully ignoring context whenever it suites you. You have repeatedly avoided actual discussion of the matter at hand, the position I put forth, and instead relied on sly attempts to dismiss everything I said.

Your behaviour is not appropriate for a website that values arguing for claims.

---

As for this website for "curious" discussion is not a website where paraphrasing Popper of all people and mentioning the statements of a political leader in the same comment gets you flagged.

You keep deflecting from the subject at hand, and never actually engaging with it... So much for "discussion".

Quite pathetic if you ask me.

As the other comment said, there's difference between JAQing off and genuinely asking questions.

If you wish to ask questions, there are places where you can very much do so, like r/honesttransgender. You can read papers on the topic, you can read experiences, and you can pose questions in a manner that isn't antagonizing people.

If you wish to blame somebody for the "intolerance" towards the "just asking questions" rhetoric, there are plenty of "news" anchors that cause mass hysteria and purposefully misrepresent information to push their ideology.

Matt Walsh "just asked questions", while supporting, and condoning violence against trans people. Shapiro "Just asked questions", and so does Carson or whatever that guy's name is.

So now trans people have to justify their own existence as people and live in fear because of said people who "just ask questions".

You see, if you wish to learn, there is a time and place for it, antagonising people who genuinely fear for their life by using the same rhetoric the above people used to fuel a rabid and bloodthirsty base you are showing that you don't actually care about people, or at least that's the impression that you are giving.

The word "fascist" was used to refer to a person who supports authoritarian regimes that attack minorities, education, reproductive rights, freedom of speech whenever they do not like said speech. I used it to refer to people in support of creating lists of "unwanted" people [1], I used it to refer to people in support of banning books that stand against their ideology.

In your overly condescending and infantilising response, you missed context from parent comment:

> there are actual Nazis out there who want to put people in ovens, so it's taboo to make jokes about how they may have a point.

> similar thing with trans people, you mention them and trolls come out of the woodwork saying they should kill themselves.

Now, you may be okay with a small segment of the population dying at the hands of definitely-not-fascists who have attempted to murder certain officials at their homes, but I do not subscribe to your morally deprived and bankrupt view of the world.

Anyway, what's the difference between Putin's regime, Iran, and GOP besides the religion? It's quite eerie to see how many parallels one may draw from GOP, Iran and Russia.

[1] https://www.huffpost.com/entry/texas-transgender-database-dr...

I see your anecdotal data and I raise you my predictor variables:

- Wears a maga hat

- Supports forced pregnancies

- Is evangelical christian

- Is proudly unvaccinated

- Considers him or her self a "pureblood"

- Is proudly uneducated and complains about "overeducated" women.

- Complains about drag shows - which nobody forced them to go to - while not batting an eye for beauty pageants for children.

- Complains about HBO Max's The Last of Us showcasing a gay couple (but they obviously loooooove watching heterosexual "couples" on shows)

They are referring to Trump running on the platform of punishing doctors for offering gender affirming healthcare, and banning transitioning.

Apparently stating facts is worthy of downvotes. Keep it classy HN.

They do have a master's degree according to the post.

The claims made are not that deep for researchers.

It is slower to the same backprop that we have used for decades now.

No comparisons to AdamW were made.

In fact, this algorithm uses backprop at its core, but propagating through 0 layers.

In my opinion, yes if and only if the update does not use a stateful optimiser, and the computation is easy / simple enough that the updated parameter value can be computed immediately.

In linear layers, it is possible. Once you have computed the gradient of the output of the vector ith vector, so a scalar, you scale the input by that value and add it to the parameters.

This is a simple FMA op: a=fma(eta*z, x, a), with z the gradient of the vector, x the input, a the parameters, and eta the learning rate. This computes a = a + eta*z*x in place.

Let's suppose that you are correct, which direction are the weights updated towards?

The implementations of this compute gradients locally.

A single linear layer is for all intents and purposes equivalent to running an ensemble of linear estimators. By disallowing gradients to flow between two layers A, B, computing (B . f . A)(x) with f being a non linearity, the second layer is an ensemble of linear estimators of the outputs of the first, and for all intents and purposes, the output of (f.A)(x) is just preprocessing for B.

Since gradients don't flow from B to A in (B.f.A)(x), A is trained independently of B, meaning that the training distribution of B changes without B influencing it, i.e. context drift. B doesn't know the difference, and B doesn't influence it.

For all intents and purposes, you can compute all the outputs as training of A happens, meaning training A to completion, and then feed them into B and B will still compute the same outputs and derivatives as it did before.

To deal with context drift, Hinton proposes normalizing the data, so the distribution does not change significantly.

Whatever he proposed is not "backprop-free" either. It still involves backprop, but the number of layers gradients flow through is 1, the layer itself.

The argument that you can still train through non-differentiable operations is not particularly convincing either; the reparameterization trick shows that is trivial to pass gradients through non differentiable operations if we are smart about it.

Given non differentiable operator Z: R^N -> R^N; let A, B, C be R^N -> R^N linear layer, B(Z(C(x)) * A(C(x))) allows gradients to flow through B and A all the way to C. The output of Z is for all intents and purposes a Hadamard product with (A . C)(x) that is runtime constructed and might as well be part of the input.

You can even run Z(C(x)) through a neural network and learn how to transform that and still provide useful and informative gradients back to C(x) via (A . C)

My claim WAS that hormones affect activation patterns. That is a well supported claim.

Changes in activation patterns affect our perceptions, our senses, and literally the medium by which we experience the world. They may not affect our personality instantaneously, but our personality is malleable, and depending on feedback, it changes.

If our brain's activation patterns change s.t. certain things are more enjoyable, then these new patterns integrate in our personality.

You could do this via Jupiter notebooks and visual studio code.

You can take a look at the abstract and then look for related articles in English.

You are dismissing articles that contradict your beliefs on the basis of lacking the capacity to read them, not of their content.

No comment on the other 3 references, thus that response does not contribute to the discussion, except for showing that you do not care about reaching some truth. But then again that account is only a few minutes old.

It is well documented that hormone levels affect activation patterns [1-5], so I am not sure why you are skeptical about it. Using references from another commenter.

[1] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19789167/

[2] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17117339/

[3] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25505380/

[4] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29544637/

[5] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18842345/