proto-n

Trigger points afaik are a widely accepted concept, my physical therapist tells me that something like 90% of the time her patients' problems are due to trigger points. Or more correctly due to cramping and tense muscles, which trigger points can help alleviate.

The trigger point is basically just a place where you can push on the muscle, and apparently when you push on a muscle that's tense, it's forced to relax itself. It's painful, but only as long as the muscle is tense. Relaxed muscles are not painful when pushed.

"Created on top of" does not mean training on the ouput, rather finetuning the model.

To be pedantic, this data doesn't say anything about the far right. For that, you would need to cite data about the far right itself (instead of red vs blue states), or lacking that try to argue correlations between far right presence in red majority in states affecting averages to whatever degree or something, though thats a quite weak argument imo.

(This is not a statement about whether far right is obsessed with fitness, I'm just saying that the data cited does not directly say anything about the question.)

> What mechanisms would be in place to allow me to transfer money from my KYC bank account to an anonymous wallet without it being tracked?

I really doubt that they intend do use it, but zero-knowledge cryptography indeed can accomplish this, so there is no technical limitation afaik.

> If the max is €3000 but it's entirely private, how could they possibly know I don't have a higher balance or multiple wallets?

This gets trickier. Let's say we limit to 3000 per account (and use whatever else to limit accounts/person). This would be possible, but would also reveal the amount on the account: try to send decreasing amounts, first one that succeeds reveals previous balance. There's probably an entity that can simulate sending too.

> What tech is even being used to allow fully private, offline transactions in the first place? How does the receiver verify that the digital cash is legit? And how does the network ensure that the money wasn't double spent while offline?

Yeah, this one is impossible.

Is iron oxide magnetic in nanoparticle size? Because if it is, then we can probably very efficiently filter it before releasing it into the atmosphere.

But also don't underestimate how huge it would be if we could store energy efficiently as elemental iron. E.g., produce it using solar, burn it for grid energy. Of course that depends on the efficiency of the whole process.

At least for the last point I use conda with the nb_conda/nb_conda_kernels packages, which makes you able to switch kernels to different environments.

A good post on the subject: https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/04/28/the-control-group-is-o...

They just confirmed killing 3rd party apps with unreasonable pricing

Originally they intended to launch a few days earlier, so I don't think the funny date held much significance in the choice

I never said NFT-s were required or the only possible solution, I said that I don't think NFT-s in games are inherently bad or evil (which is a quite popular opinion)

You are kind of arguing my point. Blizzard won't do it because it loves exploiting their status against the player. But that's a point for nft-s, it would make it harder to exploit players. Yeah I agree it won't ever happen, but if it did, that would be a win.

> these items rely on the goodwill of the people who make the games

But they rely on the goodwill of the game devs regardless of the items being NFT-s. Patches causing meta changes is a regular thing without NFT-s.

> someone who is both a dev and has a lot of certain NFTs could attempt to make the in-game item busted or required for competitive meta in order to sell

Or just do the same and sell the card in the in-game store for lots of $? As lots of mobile games do.

No idea, which one is more popular? Also, can you please try to argue why?

Going against the usual knee jerk "crypto bad" reaction, I don't think nft-s are inherently bad in games. All the usual hatepoints (microtransactions, pay to win, developer still controls the use of the nfts, etc) are true or can be true with or without items being nfts.

The difference I care about is tradability and transferability, which is inherent to nft-s but not to normal in-game items. For example hearthstone, blizzard's warcraft tcg, would be much better for nft cards. It would get a second hand card market similar to MTG automatically if it used nft cards on some public blockchain.

On the other hand, if it had chosen our planet as its destination 1559 years ago, then we would have no way of being aware of this fact until next year

While the tech might be dominant in a few years, that doesn't mean OpenAI is also going to dominate.

I think you have the wrong mental model about market caps. Market cap going down by $70B does not mean that $70B has been withdrawn.

I think it's mostly the search engine that is bad, the collection is ok. Queries for some of your "FAIL" lines:

https://www.iconhunt.site/?search=satellite-dish

https://www.iconhunt.site/?search=f1

https://www.iconhunt.site/?search=race-car / https://www.iconhunt.site/?search=racecar

I think it is a very good argument. I'm really taken aback by seemingly everyone playing dumb. Maybe I'm dumb. I feel like I'm in the twilight zone.

Displaying whatever you want on your website is an established thing. It might not be a very friendly thing (unskippable ads, etc.), but it's ok. The user visits you for what you have to say, and you say it. Going to the candy store with your car and hearing the owner tell you about his new candy, or even his opinion about your car, is fine.

But having your car tell you, unprompted, not to go to this candy store, but rather to the one owned by the car brand, is nuts. It's not okay. How on earth can people equate these two things?

On their own websites, which is a huge difference

Based on the title alone, you might think that this is about needing silence to be creative. But as far as I understand, the (very short) post is more about the lack of feedback while creating. "While you’re reading this, creative people are working hard now across the world on the next novel, movie, or song you’ll love, and yet, you don’t know anything about it, and they don’t know if you’ll like it either."

Also, to react to the post itself, yes to some degree, but also no? Most crative processes involve multiple people going back and forth, giving feedback along the way. Editors, teammates, talking to family, brainstorming, etc. Yeah it's not the final audience, but it's similar. A mind on its own is so so much less creative then two minds interacting.

Here's an old approach doing something similar, for reference: [1]

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsjDnYxJ0bo

Well, ethereum has been slightly deflationary since the merge. Though it doesn't offer 20% either

I'm far from gen z, but I spent a lot of time communicating through chat in the past ~20 years, and I've gotta say, to me, most of this is not "Gen Z" stuff, but "chat native" stuff. It becomes pretty obvious pretty soon when somebody doesn't really know the (for lack of a better word) language of these small nuances and a bunch of others, like message length, timings, etc.

It's not done to be edgy, or to fit in, or anything like that. Its different tones in text. If the other party doesn't speak this language, then the communication becomes very literal, very formal. Kind of like how someone who is oblivious to social cues comes across in spoken conversations, only without the stigma, as its quite normal to not know this stuff. But it's much harder to 'feel' the other person.

Here's what I would have answered to the OP in the link:

This technology is going to be developed regardless of what we do here. Please realize that you are not advocating for it not to be developed: rather, you are advocating for it not to be developed in the open.

I understand what you mean, and I think we are unfortunately not there yet. Right now you still mostly need to understand the details to make something work. In many areas, it's not even just a leaky abstraction [1] where it works 90% of the time, but more like a series of magic incantations and tricks you need in a specific order to make it work. But as far as I can tell its getting better and more robust in general.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13215590

I can't exclude the possibility. But kind of in the same sense that I can't exclude the possibility that it's actually true. Sure, might be that I'm simply not aware of the poem, etc. I find this extremely unlikely.

I also find it extremely unlikely that someone on the internet invented this tale about "the panther" and chatgpt just rephrased it or quoted it. The internet is full of actual true lists of Petőfi's famous poems, but it isn't full of people inventing fake poems of his.

On a very theoretical level, sure, it's a rephrasing and combination of pieces of stuff ChatGPT has actually been trained on, because it has seen hungarian text, it has learned stuff about Petőfi, it has seen every single word that its using. But after a certain point, combining known words and text structures with bits of semantic knowledge in unexpected ways becomes a new invented thing, instead of just quotes.

But you can see many examples of ChatGPT inventing things like urls, python libraries, etc. It's perfectly capable of bulshitting believably.

I don't think I am: I just read the transcript of a quite funny chatgpt conversation, where it was asked to explain about a hungarian poet (Petőfi Sándor) in hungarian. It listed some true facts, then a list of the "most famous poems", including a bunch that didn't exist. Then the user asked about a particular one titled "The Panther". It responded by explainin about the poem, how it's main theme is fight for freedom (Petőfi was a big figure in the hungarian revolution of 1848), and how the panther itself symbolizes freedom and self-sacrifice. It even quoted a few lines from the poem (it didn't rhyme, but otherwise was very plausible to have been written by Petőfi).

See, "The Panther" is not a poem of Petőfi. The quote was not from any other work of him. It's not from the Rilke poem (or its translations I know of) either. It's completely made up, but also made to sound very plausible, to the point where if I didn't know better or look it up, I could be convinced. The only thing suspicios is the lack of rhyming.

I put information in quotes because I don't consider made up stuff information.

No, what you are writing is not correct. It can make up "information" on the fly. It's goal is to sound plausible, not to tell the truth.

Second, the "language model" is a text completion engine. What can be controlled using conversational natur language is ChatGPT, which is a conversational engine developed out of a language model.