myaccount9786

> Realistically a lot of old people just vote for who the guy on TV told them to

Is there a study or some data backing this up? Or just a stereotype?

Yes I agree with you that the risks are low.

But I disagree fervently and am offended with the parent comment. It doesn't make one foolish or prideful to take ownership over evaluating the cost/benefit. As an asocial person who prefers it online: parent commenter, kindly [edit: mind your own business]

Social anxiety disorder.

Thinking about the TV you watch but not writing an essay about it = interaction or no interaction?

Where is the boundary; how can you define it?

It's not extreme to be an absolutist here like myself.

The best things about the U.S. system are simple. If you are born on her land, you are a citizen. If you are a citizen over 18* you can vote. You have the right to free speech and religion as long as it doesn't injure anyone else.

These decisions were made in part to reject the British monarch's divine right to rule and establish popular sovereignty. I am not a historian; this is not the full picture, but this is how I understand it.

To me, talk of disenfranchisement is categorically dangerous because it undermines the foundation of the government, and walks back the 250-year work of civil rights activists to establish what is today for most, a pretty good system.

So yeah, should we let kids vote? Maybe, why not.

Should we take that right away from anyone based on fuzzy criteria or a doctor's evaluation? No, and I refer you to the history of the post-reconstruction South as an example.

*(or historically 21, also male, white, etc.)

Maybe not equally. I know maybe like 10 old people. Most of them are very smart.

I've met several 2-year-olds. Dumb like a rock.

But should 12-year-olds be allowed to vote? I don't see a reason not to besides history. In the U.S. during Vietnam the minimum age was lowered from 21 to 18. Why not younger?

Umm... yes, historically disenfranchisement was driven by racism and sexism.

This is driven by ageism.

Obviously racism was historically much more abusive. But both are still discrimination.

I think the controls in this space are such a shit show right now that being "open model" is practically equivalent to a WTFPL.

If you're trying to build an app based on SD, then not being open source matters. But seems like the majority of use cases are just "I want to run the model locally". And at that point HF can't stop me from just ripping the Wi-Fi card out of my computer.

The easiest way to combat this is to put your model behind an API and filter queries (midjourney, OpenAI) or just not make it available (Google). The tradeoff is that you're paying for everyone's compute.

I guess SD is betting on saving $ on compute being more important in this space than the ability to gatekeep certain queries. And the tradeoff is that you need to do nsfw filtering in your released model.

It will be interesting to see who's right in 2 years.

You can download the model weights and run them offline. At least, you could in v1.4. I assume this is still possible on v2.0?

Ok, maybe opening theory is less fun.

But tactics are very fun. They're not about memorization, but about calculation and pattern recognition. If you get good enough, you get to sacrifice all kinds of material if you calculate. Bxg6. Raaaar!

To clarify, there are two logical consequences of that parent comment.

Suppose a 65yo person watches too much tv and still votes.

1. In order to be allowed to vote, they need to watch less tv.

2. They don't get to vote otherwise.

My point is: we have so much stigma against the elderly in this country that arguments like these even appear reasonable at first glance. I'm arguing that there are dark consequences of this line of thinking.

So, how is this not the same as another restrictive voting requirement, such as literacy tests or poll taxes?

Just want to ask; how is it a disingenuous rewrite. What is the charitable interpretation of "old people have mental problems, but they still vote, and that's a problem"? That's literally what the parent comment says.

I'm right to compare it to Jim Crow, I'm quoting verbatim, and that's essentially what they're arguing for.

This seems like a reasonable argument until you go deeper.

> most people keep at least 1 hand on the reins in a critical way: they vote

> it's reasonable to be concerned about [old people's] mental well being.

So you're saying old people shouldn't be allowed to vote... because they're mentally incapable?

I remember one time in American history when certain folks decided certain other folks were mentally incapable of voting... (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literacy_test)

It may be beneficial from a medical perspective, but you're ignoring the obvious risks. For people with SAD, etc. there is the risk of severe stress. For all people, there is the risk of sexual assault. There is the risk of false or true accusations from students, friends, or partners, the risk of getting assaulted, physically confronted, or robbed, reputational damage, etc. The list goes on.

It's up to each individual to decide whether the rewards of in-person social interaction outweigh the risks. And it's not up to anyone but me to proscribe what my decision on this matter is.

That being said, I think there is a general bias in American culture towards "making something of yourself", which results in the act of participating in non-productive activities (ex: "mindless tv" such as gameshows, infomercials) as something which you need an excuse to do. For example: "I need to de-stress so I can be productive tomorrow". When you get old, this excuse is no longer possible. Which is why folks refer to vegetating like this as "sad".

A hedonistic/utilitarian framework is a better model to look at these situations. Is that elderly individual enjoying themselves? Yes. Will their inaction today result in negative consequences (financial, health, etc.) later in life? No. In this framework, it's a perfectly good use of their time then.

As a redneck, I love America. But I think this question posed by the OP is interesting because it shows the tradeoff everyone must make in American culture between exercising individual freedoms and increasing social credit/value/standing.

I disagree that consuming media and participating online is not "interacting with the world". I spend a lot of my free time reading Wikipedia, watching YouTube, and playing games. This content comes from "the world". At my job I sit in front of a computer and interact with people via text and voice call. This is interacting with "the world".

I don't understand why we fetishize in-person interaction as being "the world" and virtual interaction as "not the world".

What about reading books? Would you criticize someone for reading too many books? Does that person not have a "point in living" in your opinion?

In my opinion, this is a true Scotsman fallacy. And the bias is due to nostalgia.

I don't believe anyone could be 2200 and fall to 1300 because I am 1800 and I crush 1300s 99% of the time. And 2200s will crush me 99% of the time. How that decline happens?

So you're saying that you could crush me but are getting beat by 1300s who anyone at 1800 could crush easily? F to doubt.

Edit: for example https://www.318chess.com/elo.html. there is a statistical analysis of lichess data as well but it went down a few years ago.

Why complain about not getting better than 1300 then? My point is there are a lot of different levers to pull to get better and imo it's interesting to learn more tactics.

The game does become more interesting as you get better. At least up to 1850 in my personal experience. At <=1400 level the game is more like gambling imo, hoping opponent will fall into trap or miss a move.

Does it use the frequencies from the lichess database? That would be pretty cool if it did!

Oh haha N=2 here, so you are probably right. Survivorship bias on my part.

I posted these stats in another thread:

According to https://lichess.org/analysis#1, for blitz and rapid games played on lichess with 1.e4, 1...e5 is 33%, 1...c5 is 25% and 1...e6 is 10%. And 35% is some other nonsense.

Sure maybe the translation is wrong, but I'm saying there's bias in the test due to the fact it only plays sicilian to 1.e4. What about 1.e6 or 1.e5? Hard to estimate fide or lichess rating if you don't test those.

According to https://lichess.org/analysis#1, for blitz and rapid games played on lichess with 1.e4, 1...e5 is 33%, 1...c5 is 25% and 1...e6 is 10%. And 35% is some other nonsense.

Computer chess tournaments solve this problem by requiring the computers to play specific openings.

Just want to point out the obvious: if you are staying at 1300 for over 1y, you are not improving and likely not understanding why you are losing. I would recommend you study rather than banging your head against the wall by playing more games.

Opening theory and tactics are a good place to start.

An easy step is make sure you know a few common openings and have at least one response prepared to each. But also a good understanding of principles. Opening principles are more important, you can wing it if you don't know the theory. There are thousands of videos on YouTube about these topics.

And obviously just don't hang pieces and take your opponent's hung pieces. At 1300 on lichess, your opponent will make a bunch of tactical mistakes which you can just take if you see them, after you can just win if you play solidly for the rest of the game. The way to study here is with puzzles.

Sorry to patronize. I have played thousands of 1300's on lichess and improved after I sat down and studied. But I can tell you, if you're actually 1300 you are not strong enough in some of these areas.

P.S. I don't believe the comment above yours. The dude went from 2200 to 1300??

I wish against 1.e4 it wouldn't always play 1...c5. Right now, it's less of a test of "what is your chess rating" and more of "how much sicilian theory do you know".

Its prediction was about 300 points low compared to actual lichess rating (1800). But online chess is very different; you see a lot of unsound openings that an engine wouldn't ever play.

Just to be clear, 122 random bits are just fine as a security measure depending on what you want to do. For example, if I have 1 URL and I'm trying to prevent someone from guessing it.

How you choose to encode the bits doesn't affect the security; if you use UUID form it's just as secure as if you use Base64. Regardless, if I had my 122 random bits, you would require 2^121 guesses to have a 50% chance of guessing it.

Edit: this is in the non-quantum case cf. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grover%27s_algorithm

Edit 2: (3:32 ET) done editing

> I find that 160 bits is a sweet spot of excellent security

Please, for the love of God, leave cryptography to the cryptographers.

Apart from the fact that they have no incentive to, there are technical downsides, even assuming you could get a useful homomorphic scheme to work in practice.

For example, encrypted data can't be compressed. Columnar big data systems rely heavily on that to be performant.

A lot of "tech" companies are really just marketing companies. No innovation is being done, just optimizing some funnel.

Working on useful software is good, glad you're doing that now.

Why indeed.