grahamj

yeah I hit it in about two. I just signed up monthly to try it out for a bit but am wavering on whether I consider it worth it. It's good but I'm not sure it's enough better than DDG to pay for.

And for AI I'd usually rather have API access and use it with tools rather than a web chat.

Just stop fucking using google

> Except all the scandals and anti-Popes are empirical evidence of the Holy Spirit guiding the Church.

> Jesus rose from the dead and against His Church the gates of hell won’t prevail.

I'll never understand how anyone can believe these things.

> I did not argue God exists because no one can prove he doesn't.

You are saying that by claiming that my claim is dogma. If I say the sky appears blue that isn't dogma, it's a statement of human perception of reality. I see it, you see it, everyone sees it. We know because it's what we perceive. We know how it works down to the quantum level. We can describe it with words and with math. We can test it.

Claiming there is a god is not that and the fact that it's unfalsifiable doesn't lend it a shred of legitimacy. It's an idea, nothing more.

Existence is all we know; there is nothing more ordinary.

The idea of nothing existing is just that: an idea. Like god.

That is not rational. You can’t just make up an idea and then claim it’s true because no one can prove it isn’t. If you want to claim something that is outside our ordinary perceptions (and tests!) of how reality works is true then the onus is on you to prove it.

That’s a fine definition but it doesn’t encompass the ramifications. Christianity doesn’t simply define god, it dictates what will happen to you if you disagree or go against its presumed will.

The universe won’t damn you to an eternity of suffering if you don’t live by some standard. That’s a pretty big difference from any biblical definition.

Yes you can say that. Why would we be better off without saying these things?

There’s nothing wrong with speaking out when we see people saying things we believe to be false and it’s unreasonable to expect everyone to hedge every single thing they say simply because, well, we don’t really know anything.

I know there’s no omnipotent being who cares so much about the minutiae of our lives yet allows terrible things to happen. I know the bible was written by people who never experienced the magical things written about. The onus of proof is on the one making the extraordinary claim and religion is firmly on the side of the extraordinary.

Focusing on the impossibility of knowing is just skirting the issue of the impossibility of the claims.

I didn’t even mention the bible, which I have read btw. The assertion was that Christianity offers a “beautiful and empowering message” and I said that it’s also imaginary.

The message is imaginary because it’s based on an imaginary idea: god

Books are written by people. It’s humans all the way down.

> This gives me little hope for people pitching AI leading us into a better society unless the hearts of the people with the power are trustworthy and faithful to promoting good for people rather than profit for themselves.

Agree. I see parallels to communism: in theory it sounds alright - spread the wealth, everyone works for the collective etc. - but in practise it doesn’t work because people are greedy and leaders inevitably become dictators.

With AI it’s similar in that in theory it could be impartial and level playing fields, but in practise they will be run by companies and governments where the same old human fallibilities persist.

If you can’t trust the leaders then you can’t trust their machines either.

[flagged]

Yeah this is what I was thinking, or maybe use smaller models to work on the prompt then fire it off to the biggie while you do something else.

Well, there is ice cream

Just started using it, love it

Frigate rocks, I love all the zany things it can detect. Want to know if there's a zebra, snowboard or teddy bear at your door? You got it!

You can announce if someone is wearing glasses or has a handbag.

Fellow HA enthusiast here high fives

I’ve been upgrading my adaptive lighting over the past few days so this is neat timing. I’m taking quite a different approach though. While I do have a script that can be called to set a light to the “right” value (based on a global ideal brightness and kelvin values calculated elsewhere plus params for multiplier and offset) I call that for each light or group from individual room handler automations.

The reason is that every room is different. Besides the obvious off or presence states, what is the brightness of the room? Are the curtains open? Is the TV playing? Is it late at night? Is the vacuum in this room? Do we have guests? The answers are all unique to the room.

So each room handler can figure those things out and call the light set script with parameters that offset the brightness, and in some cases like an interval, nudge the current brightness towards the ideal without fully overriding what someone might have set manually.

Fun stuff :)

Table/log duality goes back further than Kleppmann though. An earlier article that really influenced me was

https://engineering.linkedin.com/distributed-systems/log-wha...

The lack of ordering is surprising. Without that you can’t stream without a buffer.

amazing :D

I didn’t say burden and choices, I said blame and responsibility.

X to doubt. So far at least, to do anything nontrivial you still have to understand code. Sure it will raise the bar for what someone without such understanding can make, but a lot of that can already be done with code-free tools.

What most people who would call themselves programmers are working on is far beyond what AI can do today, or probably in the foreseeable future.

I dunno, I’m sure sure who I’d bet on in a race of ML website use vs. ML trying to detect ML website use.

From https://www.theregister.com/2025/01/23/openai_unveils_operat...

> While individuals can perform such tasks on their own time at no extra cost, Operator can do so less reliably for US-based ChatGPT Pro subscribers, who pay $200 per month.

Sounds amazing, sign me up :D

It's not developing anymore, that's for sure. Now it's devolving.

Everyone's to blame - those who voted for this idiot and everyone else for not doing enough to stop it.

All eligible voters are collectively responsible for the outcome of the election. You can't be proud of democracy if you won't shoulder the blame when it renders poor outcomes.

Even if these idiots wanted subtlety they're too stupid to make it happen. They just want to do big, bold things but have no idea how to actually make anything better.

Remember when Idiocracy was just a movie?

> As for why now and not before, it's because of how apparent the possible effects are now that there's a very direct and widely spread channel that can pump OUT information, which is vastly more effective and obvious than passive surveillance through cameras or other hardware.

This. TT's US popularity plus its fully algorithmic approach to content selection makes it potentially one of the most effective mass influence systems ever. People are easily influenced - especially young people - and the root of that being in China is a clear risk to US sovereignty.

I mean, look at what Xi and his allies would like to see happening in the US, and look at what's happening in the US today. Coincidence?