iaseiadit

Who “vilifies immigrants”? President Trump is married to an immigrant, as is Vice President Vance. And many of Trumps advisors are immigrants. And he has repeatedly said he wants America to attract the best people from around the world. You mean he vilified illegal immigrants specifically. That’s fair, he did. But he’s not obligated to speak kindly about people who flout our laws.

> Is the republican party full of bright young twenty year olds?

An absurd question, especially when outgoing Democratic president is a senile octogenarian. Twenty year olds traditionally favor Democrats, (although many shifted towards Trump in this election) but how is that evidence of fascism?

> Can you post “cis” on twitter?

Could you speak freely about Covid-19’s origins on Facebook? Is censorship only fascism when you don’t like it?

Immigrants are welcome in America, but we do not have an open border. We have an immigration process that must be followed, just like every other country on Earth.

Violating the immigration process is breaking the law. Enforcing our laws is not “unjustly persecuting” people.

If you can’t be intellectually honest and distinguish between illegal and legal immigration, or the fact that the U.S. does not have an open border and US citizens overwhelmingly do not want an open border with the rest of the world, there’s no basis for a conversation.

What “fascism” are we talking about here? A company pulling tampons from men’s rooms? Companies scaling down DEI departments that advocated (probably illegally) in favor of gender and race-based discrimination?

Or are you speaking more broadly about the U.S.? Is it fascist to revert to a sane border policy that’s aligned with what most U.S. citizens and legal immigrants want? Or an executive branch that’s actually run by a democratically-elected individual, instead a non-elected shadow government that governed on behalf of a dementia-afflicted president whose condition was hidden from the American public for years? The same government that censored the media? Or the tech companies that willingly obliged with the government censorship? The same tech companies that fired employees for expressing opinions that differed from those held by the liberal establishment?

Sorry, I’m getting very confused if we’re turning into the fascism or finally turning away from it.

This is just checks-and-balances at work, is it not? It’s by design.

The comparison here is a slot machine: you pay a a few to play, you pull the lever to play, you win a prize.

Here, the payment is your attention, you swipe to the next video to play the game, and the prize if you land on a good video is a small hit of dopamine.

They’re talking about the algorithm that’s used outside of China being banned in China, not TikTok being banned in the US.

My understanding is there’s a lot of outreach at HBCUs, so you may try that. Also H-1Bs.

The joke that white men are all named “Chad” is tired. You’ll notice I didn’t say everyone I interviewed was name DeShawn or whatever. Let’s move past that.

I also work for a big US tech company. If it’s not standard practice, I’m happy to hear it.

I can only speak from personal experience, but since about 4 years ago, every candidate I’ve been asked to interview for a software engineering position has been Black, Hispanic, South Asian or East Asian. Not a single white American.

Are there no white people studying CS anymore or looking for jobs? Did they all stop applying?

Again, it’s only from personal experience. I never asked any of my coworkers a “hey, do you ever interview white people?”, so it could be a coincidence that I was never matched with any. But I don’t think that’s the most likely explanation…

When I started out, I did read code top-to-bottom. I was mostly self-taught and didn't have a mental model yet of how code was structured, so I relied on this "brute force" method to familiarize myself.

I suppose it's not safe to assume that everyone started out like this. But advael is guilty of assuming that nobody started out like this. And on top of that, conveying it in a very negative and critical way. Don't get discouraged.

Some humans can do it consistently, other humans can't.

Versus how no publicly-available AI can do it consistently (yet). Although it seems like a matter of time at this point, and then work as we know it changes dramatically.

Offset by the value of toppling a hostile administration that had him in its crosshairs. Is that worth $XXB? Maybe not, but it's worth something.

> As for integration, I don't see why people who are judgmental.

People are judgmental because mass migration from high-crime countries transformed Sweden from one of the world's safest countries to having the highest rate of gun violence in the EU, and Sweden has been increasingly transparent about the situation.

Because of the political climate in most Western countries today, we can't have a rational discussion about negative effects of mass migration, or consider scenarios where the negative impact might outweigh the benefits. It's just a conversation we can't have without shallow knee-jerk accusations of racism and fascism and Nazism and so on.

I'm familiar. Completely transformed New York City in the 1990s for the better.

But I'm not suggesting that every law is good. If a law is not enforceable or not a net positive for the community, change it or get rid of it. But don't enforce it inconsistently, and don't apply it to certain people and not others depending on the whims of the police and the district attorneys and their personal predilections and politics.

I'm of the belief that if a law exists but isn't being enforced, the only correct course of action is to eliminate the law or start enforcing it. Otherwise, you enforce the law inconsistently, and you reinforce the notion that laws don't need to be followed.

Technology can help with consistent enforcement. Stop light cameras, in my experience, are more impartial and objective than police officers.

Where I live in the U.S., crime is prevalent. Many laws are flouted by criminals and rarely enforced by the police or district attorneys. The system has become a farce. It's better to enforce the laws consistently, or if they're not needed, to eliminate them.

Some photos from the camp here: https://www.rnz.co.nz/national/programmes/eyewitness/galleri...

Photo of men with artificial limbs built in the camp: https://www.awm.gov.au/collection/C4416

A wireless set hidden in the sole of a prisoner's sandals: https://www.awm.gov.au/collection/C14187

If all signs in the prison camp were written right-to-left instead of vertically, they probably would have noted that before creating the sign. Especially considering their lives depended on it.

There have been XPRIZE competitions for vehicle efficiency, oil spill technology, more efficient rockets, health sensors, AI systems, genomics, etc.

Whether or not quantum computers have practical applications, the prize itself is not evidence of that.

Facebook did it, so they will follow.

If you've been fired, it typically signals you had very bad performance or committed some fireable offense. If you were laid off, you were ostensibly just on the wrong team at the wrong time.

It's not about how you view your last employer, it's about how your next potential employer will view you.

I've thought this about Facebook/Meta for so many years now, and I continue to be proven wrong time and time again.

And inexperienced people are notorious for falling for unfounded hype. Eventually they either learn to discern value, which is hard, or just write off hype, which usually works fine but occasionally makes them late to the party.

We’re talking about LLMs. In that context it makes no sense to “exclude the ram difference.”

> RAM being the issue would mean Samsung phones are somehow more RAM efficient than Pixel phones, which is hard to believe.

Not necessarily. It’s at least possible that the overall experience is degraded in the low RAM system, and Samsung is willing to overlook this… which isn’t hard to believe.

Cal, not Carl.

Not an expert, but this paper explores double descent with simple models. The interpretation there: when you extend into the overparameterized regime, that permits optimization towards small-norm weights, which generalize well again. Does that explain DD generally? Does it apply to other models (e.g. DNNs)?

https://arxiv.org/pdf/2303.14151.pdf

It wasn’t a full year of iPhone sales either: it launched in June and sold 1.9 million units in just six months.

The VR market is small for a reason.

I usually have a good experience, but just in the last few weeks it’s been bad:

- Driver started watching TikTok videos on his dashboard-mounted phone while driving

- Driver going way over the speed limit in stormy weather

- A driver was clearly sick, coughing and sniffling and sneezing the whole ride

- Got in a car and it reeked of marijuana

- Got in a car and it reeked of BO

At this point I’d probably prefer a robot driver.

While some may have doubted the iPhone, Apple sold 1.9 million iPhones in the year it launched, and cell phones had already been established as an enormous and growing market.

VR seems very different from that. Most people simply don’t want what companies are trying to sell them, and I think multiple major technical breakthroughs would be necessary to change that.

OP shared a link to just the Imagenet paper.

Agree he had a decent overall track record at Stanford, but that’s not how tenure works — it might have got his foot in the door as an assistant professor somewhere. He chose a much more lucrative path.