jibalt

non sequitur. The point is that "everyone" left Twitter is nonsense; no one said that no one did. Mastodon and Bluesky are alternatives, but Twitter is still dominant despite all the Nazis there.

Pangram is utterly useless.

P.S. The response is non sequitur. I already noted that TFA is ridiculous, but that has nothing to do with the fact that Pangram produces a very high number of false positives.

Non sequitur. "Everyone is" is nonsense, "most aren't" is correct. Individuals who are: irrelevant, as that was already implied.

P.S. The response misses the point, going for personal rudeness instead of reasoning.

This sort of post is ridiculous ... the vast majority of people are not "packing up", and people are constantly arriving.

Parables aren't reality.

Yes ... pretty damn stupid.

Every expert on genocide says it's a genocide, so claiming that I'm throwing it around with no argument is a lie ... in the service of genocide. And I'm Jewish ... there's nothing that I want to "do to Jews", but I would like the state of Israel to stop committing genocide--among other things, it foments antisemitism, which is dangerous to me.

The fact is that the people who respond the way G...1 responded are fundamentally dishonest dimwitted wretches (that was already obvious from his "people idolize Hamas committing crimes against humanity" lie) who hate Palestinians (whom they refuse to distinguish from Hamas, even 3 year olds having their limbs blown off or being buried in rubble ... these sick sociopathic scum will argue that they are future members of Hamas) ... it's about what they want to do to them. These vile scum interpret "it's a genocide" as "I want Hamas to kill Jews" ... what could be more transparently stupid and dishonest?

Yet more incompetence (and quite a case of projection) in the response ... as the GP made clear, the context isn't about a comparison between different groups of scientists. The GGP made a sweeping generalization about the entire community of scientists -- as the GP said, this was the scientific consensus. There wasn't some separate group of "competent scientists" who believed that "junk DNA" wasn't junk, as there was no evidence that it wasn't. One is not competent merely by virtue of making a baseless claim. The fact is that the scientists who subscribed to the consensus were generally competent, as scientists generally are ... far more competent, certainly, than bozos making absurdly ignorant and cognitively inept claims that lack of knowledge of the function of "junk DNA" was an indication of scientific incompetence as opposed to some other group of people who were competent scientists.

I won't respond further to such cluelessness.

Just as the "neurons" are virtual, the "waves" would be virtual. They aren't talking about physical waves produced by the hardware. Likewise the LLM "mechanics" are virtual--it's nonsensical to say they don't exist.

People here seem pretty excited by this (more than it warrants, IMO).

That week off and soul searching is definitely warranted.

No, all the evidence is to the contrary.

They are widely considered by neuroscientists to be shut. P&H keep showing up at the [Towards a] Science of Consciousness conferences which long ago devolved into a gathering of crackpots, but no one else takes them seriously.

Such a completely baseless speculation doesn't even warrant being called a hypothesis.

> “that thing you call experience? That’s a special kind of structured EM field configuration.”

Absurd handwaving that ignores everything that we actually know about "experience".

Numerous well known facts.

"the competence of scientists compared to competent scientists" is incoherent and, well, incompetent at multiple levels in this context.

> probably originated the joke

A completely baseless claim ... "probably" means > .5 probability, but there is no evidence to support that; it's sheer speculation.

Intellectually dishonest tripe.

Er, perhaps take a look after the edit:

> There are recorded cases of real regressions, but they're better characterised as incidents, not nerfs

There has always been plenty of intellectual dishonesty here, but remember Hanlon's Razor.

> It is definitely not this.

I don't think you understand what "this" is--or rather, the "thing" that didn't happen in "nothing happened".

> Anthropic has thousands of employees making probably > 100,000+ tiny changes across the entire stack and infrastructure everyday.

So, not the sort of thing referred to.

> The compounding effect can definitely cause temporary regressions in some domain or use-case that doesn’t have really good coverage in their internal tests.

Yes, but you claimed that this definitely did happen. But the whole point is to determine whether it did.

> It's demoralizing when people idolize Hamas committing crimes against humanity and starting wars.

It's sickening when people blatantly lie like that ... especially in the service of rationalizing genocide.

It is obvious, but it is also to be expected that a significant number of people here, as elsewhere, will rationalize genocide ... and the comment you responded to is particularly crude in its lack of humanity.

It's frustrating when people rationalize genocide.

The problem is that it's genocide.

> I never understood the code.

> I understand code

Er, ok.

Those 6 weeks on a bike were amazing. It would have been a bit better if it hadn't been the worst summer weather in 130 years (I was told) ... there was a giant storm in the Atlantic that pummeled France (and me) with rain most of the time I was there. I developed a major case of bronchitis, but the French had good drugs.

Yeah, I effed up.

Victorian embroiderers in 1088 when Odo, the Archbishop of Bayeux and half brother of William the Bastard/Conqueror, commissioned it to have it hung in the cathedral?

The tale was that it had been created by Queen Mathilde and her ladies in waiting, which of course was not true ... it was made by professional embroiderers, but long before the reign of Queen Victoria.

When Odo fell out of favor with William, the tapestry was folded and stored in a cedar box, opened each year for inventory. This is why it is so well preserved ... as opposed, for instance, to the massive Apocalypse Tapestry in Anjou that was used to protect orange orchards from frost.

> in the reproduction

The original is visible behind plexiglass in Bayeux. There is also a canvas reproduction -- I saw it in 1997 and don't recall whether it was bowdlerized.

P.S. Ah, I missed that it has been temporarily relocated from Bayeux to the British Museum. It will return to Bayeux within a year.

I saw the Bayeux tapestry in Bayeux in 1997. For 7 francs I got a 20 minute film that played alternately in English and French, as much time as I wanted to study a canvas replica, and a quickly moving line past the real thing behind plexiglass, wearing headphones that explained it that were coded for language with colored dots. Great experience. I was on a 6 week solo bike ride, and just before Bayeux I had been at the D-Day beaches 6 miles away ... another war almost 900 years later. And a few days earlier I had been on the mud flats at Mont St. Michel, the same ones that the tapestry (more of an embroidery) showed Harold rescuing a couple of soldiers from.

Something odd happens with that Tokyo woman's legs. First she skips a couple of times, then her feet change places.