jstanley

Easy to fear what you merely imagine.

Did you know that for train and bus travel in the UK bags are not scanned? And we don't have people bombing trains and buses all the time.

Some museums look in bags and some don't and I'm not sure there's a statistically significant difference in how frequently they get bombed.

What hasn't aged well? I don't think any of it is dated to any particular time period.

Do you even have crackheads in London? I was familiar with "crackhead" only as an American concept.

There are 101 boats called freedom but they're all the same boat because they're not de-duplicated.

> The numbers are as good as they can get

That doesn't mean they don't warrant error bars.

Error bars aren't there to show that you didn't do a good job collecting the data, they're there to show your level of uncertainty.

You think you would be better off if the industrial revolution were stopped in its tracks?

Because nobody did it on purpose?

Do you have an encyclopedic knowledge of which terms are regulated and which ones aren't?

Don't you think it would cause more confusion if people expecting to buy a Jamaican beef patty instead have to buy a "Jamaican beef-inside-pastry product" ?

I can get behind deliberately misspelling as "genious" when using it sarcastically.

Oops, my mistake!

> How do you make an std::array of a given type?

std::array isn't a thing in C, so you don't.

We call a proof that is not tautological "wrong".

> * measurements, when executed correctly, are objective with numeric evidence, thus some people are wholly incapable of measuring things for the same reasons some people cannot introspect

I don't understand what you're trying to say. What are the reasons some people can't introspect? Is it even true that some people can't introspect?

> You already correct yourself and revise your speech in an append-only rolling edit.

No, I think before I speak and say what I planned to say. What do you do, sir?

Doesn't work outside the US sadly.

It's so bizarre to me that people want to do this.

Can't you type faster than you speak? Doesn't your speaking inhibit your thinking? Aren't you self-conscious talking out loud? How are our experiences so different?

> giving each hash function it’s own bit table is equivalent to having one bit table with a number of bits equal to that of the sum of the numbers of bits in each hash function.

This is incorrect, although I also initially had the same incorrect intuition, see my (downvoted) comment in the same thread.

By way of illustration: imagine the limit case where you have the same number of bits as hash functions, so there's only 1 bit per hash function. If you have a separate table for each hash function then every input hashes to the same thing so all inputs are indistinguishable.

But if you put all hash functions in the same table that has a number of bits equal to the number of hash functions, then each hash function only sets 1 bit chosen at random based on the input, instead of always setting the same one.

Seems to me that as long as the total number of bits is the same it makes no difference whether each hash function has a separate table or not.

EDIT: Although, https://chatgpt.com/share/6a67336b-8600-83ed-9671-fab769b485... - it is in fact ever so slightly less effective if you have a separate table for each hash function

EDIT2: In the limit, if the number of hash functions equals the number of bits, then we can see that inserting one element would set all bits in the case where we use separate tables, but only 50% of bits if they use one big shared table.

So the false positive rate is higher if they use separate tables.

Saving any nonzero amount of lives for any unbounded cost is not necessarily a good trade, if there are ways to save more lives for the same cost, or the same number of lives for a lesser cost.

> I don't forsee politicians in either country handing over their power to AI

They won't see it that way, but also programmers don't see ourselves as having handed over our power to AI, and yet...

Is it just me or are these almost all terrible?

Almost all of them are animated, move when hovered, move when clicked, or sometimes all three. Just awful. LLMs keep making buttons like this and I keep telling them not to.

This is exactly the kind of take that the comment you replied to is talking about.

Can you elaborate on how a hobbyist with a 3d printer could use this process?

Not if the new weights don't influence the old outputs.

It's reassuring to know that even a supergenius's ChatGPT session is one sentence from the human followed by 3 pages of LLM output.

Were you using the Gemini image generator though? The article is about using LLMs to do drawing via tool calls.

I pasted the introduction into Pangram and it said 100% AI.

I too judge books by their covers.

I'm sure the track surface and shoes are important, but if "singlet" means the clothing he is wearing? It's really hard to believe that makes a material difference.

Trading on polymarket for example?