mimd

I'd call it somewhat mild attention to other factors from the one reviewer. The pointing out of issues in data balance, why an nn model, are also good criticism. Here's the review page if anyone wants to read it.

https://static-content.springer.com/esm/art%3A10.1038%2Fs415...

So the question becomes, is his claim of leaving out other factors not greatly influencing and it's just a grift and/or is nature's review process a dog and pony show?

Several other compounding factors have been listed for this year as well.

"Wtf?" -Ursula

--- I will give Atwood some slack, as less than half her bibliography is it. But still, evaluating the chasm between her and chatgpt is kinda what she wants on her terms.

The cynicism and story of the abrupt end of the comic, leaves an ambiguous hole in the story of Calvin. Those next stages of dialogue, that a child such as he must go through to continue. The author's hermiting, who is Calvin, gives that a possible outcome for Calvin, is to not to succeed but to retreat or worse. If you like Calvin, you don't want that, or for his author.

It is a sad backdrop that colors the work, especially near the end of the run. I'd feel better about it if Watterson went on to new pursuits rather than going silent for years. That is was a good time to try something new, rather than a depression induced rage to end it.

As I get older, some of the jokes and commentary age to that of coming from a younger person who still is grappling with the world, unaware of the commentary that could be said in ernest against it. The self reflection is mostly done via Hobbes, and sometimes he is not enough, too much in agreement. Luckily, it mostly never verges on insulting, but it's introductory to the issues he attempts to grapple with. As a reflection of a young child it will work forever, but as a reflection of Watterson, it shows a stall in development. Instead of accepting the world or at least challenging his initial revulsion, I worry he retreated and became a hermit out of depression.

COI's can get very draconian in other sectors with legal binding s. It does nearly reach who you vote for. And practicing your "Opinion" doesn't give you a legal basis to breach those bounds, and say insider trade off a company.

The article could have a better title, as the article clearly states Google is more in a dispute with one of its suppliers , and less of believing UMG's position. It's less hypocritical as implied by the title.

The articles could start mentioning the CFAA, and how US courts have interpreted it. It's kinda important to how the web scraping questions will go in court. I'd like an article about world wide web scraping legalities.

Also, verge should mention in these articles that they have said no to gpt bot.

https://www.theverge.com/robots.txt.

Not that it really matters in figuring out vox's positions, but they like to report on conflicts of interest.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/society/200...

Course the original article, "New health fears over big surge in autism" is now inaccessible via the guardian.* How positively "fascist", eh guardian?

*Their are dozens of other "supporting" opinion and 'concerned' articles they haven't removed. Just look before 2012 and MMR.

However Theranos', didn't succeed in it's BS. Kinda need to find a product which was BS initially but later was developed into that product. Some of the old Google AI demos spring to mind.

Thomas "Fake it to you develope it" Edison?

As an aside, to feed the original implication of the clickbait title, now I'm going down the rabbit hole of earlier/same time arc lamps.

I would like to find the bounds on the "bits" communicated between neurons, so I could then calculate the throughput of the eye for example. Helps to put bounds/identify the algorithms/processing for CV. However, I kept running into increasing complexity/unknowns over the general (and increasingly simplistic) theory of neuro communication and just general unknowns about the dendrite to axon terminal process and all the post signaling cascades.

Sigh, it's a fascinating area.

Think of it as curing a very hard disease in mice, which had no success before this point, like rabies. It shows possibility rather than it just being a theory on a chalkboard.

The next large test (ICF is not thought to be scalable to achieve true parity) is the large scale iter tomahawk test in 5 years as it's scheduled for 2025, which is supposed to reach overall breakeven, though we will see.

Overall, providing some text services independent of the program (spelling/grammer, translate, etc) would be useful.

As an aside, the NYT should at least wait till it gets published in a journal. I don't like the now common practice of citing of arXiv as the equivalent. It's sorta okay for fast research but continuous use for more than that undercuts the review process.

No, I have not forgot the firebombings. They should have weighed the firebombings as the same. But they didn't. Some of it was that it was novel and a single bomb. New capabilities seem to leave an impression, such as V2's for the ability to hit a target without warning, even though they were cost ineffective. But, they were not grasping their predicament.

But take the Soviet case to it's conclusion, and that the bombs had no impact on whether they thought the war should be continued. They could have waited more if it was just the soviets, as all the stated Soviet plans do not involve Honshu. You likely had a couple months at the minimum, even if the soviets rushed. And it's not like I hear any worries of communism in anything, Japan had a pact with them and tried to use them as a third party. So why not try to negotiate openly with the US/GB/China/Soviets then? Half their cabinet thought to try even after everything. No, hirohito, thought the US was going to bomb them to bits in the interim, whether by firebomb or atom bomb, and the offer was only going to get worse. So they ended it.

This isn't to say that maybe the atom bombs were needed to come to that position, as the previous bombings might have been enough. Or maybe a few weeks of waiting would have been enough. I ponder if their had been no bombings of any kind, per the rules of war, would Japan have surrendered given the Soviet involvement. I would guess no, considering the margin given and the longevity of such an event creating a way to rationalize out, but still something to think about.

Japan was hedging it's bets at the top, giving the option to explore a soviet mediated conditional surrender, ie. the maintenance of their post ww1 gains, maintenance of government, etc. They, Togo and Suzuki, had been considering it for a while. However, it wasn't well recieved by the mil, who thought it at best a tactic to garner an ally and to delay for time to make a defense or to get a new opening. And that is key, as it's the military had the majority of spots and overall control of decisions, only breaking after the initial bombing and soviet involvement (to a degree the soviet involvement might have been more shocking for the mil, as it wasn't known if the US had anymore bombs). And a military coup to continue the war was a chief concern, so much so that any discussion of it was done in secret. This is also likely the reason for their screwups on not responding to/inability to negotiate, as once it was made known, a coup could happen. The disconnect between the cabinet levels pragmatism and the lowers zeal didn't help any outside impression, and is one reason they had both a botched coup and yet an orderly surrender.

The soviets disregarded the request and invaded soon after it was made. This removed Japan's possibility of using the Soviets as a negotiating party/leverage with US/GB/China. This likely means a combination of soviet views/reasons:

a. the soviets thought their unconditional surrender was imminent and needed to grab land quickly b. They didn't think a unconditional surrender was imminent but needed to get on with their agreement with the others (They had to go to war on August 9th as that was the yalta agreement, 3 months after may 9th, and it's not like the sped up thinking they were close to surrender and needed to get in quickly) c. That the mullings of conditional surrender was a delay tactic to regroup/dig in and so should be ignored d. Some combination of US/GB/China would or could not entertain a conditional surrender and thus it was moot, potsdam for instance e. Japan was just looking for a new partner to help with US/GB/China and it would be not kosher to entertain it as they already had Yalta/disagreements in Europe/fights over the germans surrender f. Japan was weak and offered nothing, especially consider russo Japanese history

But consensus is just what's being carried out, not the state of all opinions. It's the reason I included "could". For example, the US may have thought that it was a strong possibility they may not surrender to any reactions, but tried anyway by dropping leaflets and more. Japans offers for a soviet negotiated conditional surrender were known to the other allies as they were decoded. Now, you could go down the path of if the US/GB/China should have gone the route of entertaining a conditional surrender to avoid continuing. But conditional surrenders can drag on for years, the war continuing all the while, and used to delay for an opening or a peacetime regrouping. It's why at all the conferences they insisted on unconditional.

Some the cynical attitude towards it was that japan wanted to play the cost game near the end, where they held that they'd fight vigorously unless they got good terms or something changed. And it's not a terrible plan mind you, as for example, the US has shown weakness to such costs in subsequent years, though for less popular wars. Or that Great Britain for example, despite being alone and under imminent invasion, saw the entrance of the US and the Soviet Union into the war. Some of this is also likely influenced by the potsdam terms, indicated the allies in the pacific did not seek Japans complete destruction. Some of this was to make surrender look attractive but it also betrays a weak stomach (despite the firebombings indicating otherwise). It only appears that threat turned into a real thought post atomic bombings (per their comments in the meetings about the bombs).

It's betrays the delusion of were they thought the war stood, that the atomic bombs meant anything changed or had even considered the USSR as a negotiator. They had already been firebombed, and thus looked at possible annihilation without the atomic bombs, they had no allies, the soviets had given warning that they were not on their side by not renewing the non aggression pact in april though they did not weigh it like they should have. Sorta the last desperate and illogical actions of a flailing government. It's one reason why the whole episode is confounding, especially later, as a "rational" actor would have surrendered earlier.

Per your point on the soviet invasions. The soviets got bogged down on both landings quickly and were helped by the surrender of a large portion of the japanese forces starting on the 15th and still taking till well after the surrender to take sakhalin and kuril. This likely would have happened to hakkido, if they weren't repulsed (doubtful they'd be fully dislodged, but overextended supplies are bad when getting bogged down). I'd have to dive more into the planning on hakkido to see the state of it, as Sakhalin/kuril are often seen as quick risky land grabs as they were launched after the bombings/invasion of Manchuria, and surrender on the 15th. Still the Soviet style of pressing might have made some gains, though it would have been limited to Hokkido. For your original post, it depends on if Japan thought Soviet occupation of Hakkido as a breaking point to take an unconditional surrender, (Okinawa comes to mind as a failed breaking point, though it did seem to set some stuff in motion), but I doubt it as, as it's always been sorta a backwater for Japan.

You can crawl through the memories/literature to see what weighed on their minds more, but it's the bombings. Japan knew what nukes were as they were developing themselves. And as pointed out by the poster, the coup attempt happened after both the Soviet involvement and Hiroshima, August 12th, so the point still stands, that their was a willingness to fight to annihilation, which would include a Soviet invasion. But your right to point out that Japan considered the better offer that stood at that pivot moment, rather than the triple scenario of more bombings, a US land invasion, and even later Soviet invasion.

Be aware, overtly strong emphasis of the Soviet invasion and de-emphasis of the role in the bombings is often a tactic to dismiss the usage of the atomic bomb, that's not borne out by what we know of the internal dialogue of Japan's surrender. And on the outside and without hindsight, to both the US and soviets, it looked very much that Japan could/would fight to the death, and this reflects in the decision making of those few weeks. Still, perhaps the Soviet invasion would have been enough, but we will never know. And it would have not worked if the coup had worked.