yareal

LLMs are an approximation of all the human media they consume. An LLM cannot exist with out human circuitry. It's at best an ersatz language user.

I checked sources, turns out literally tens of millions of people vocally and loudly disagree with you.

I think it's not helpful to anyone to come in here and be so resolute and so black and white. Especially in the face of an event that has drawn the eye of the international community as a potential genocide.

I'm not telling you what to believe, just that like, posting like you did is not engaging in any meaningful discussion.

"People who I am critical of don't like me" is not particularly surprising, to be honest.

Makes total sense in hindsight, here's hoping this gets confirmed. It's also just generally a good way for young kids to develop. Kids learn a ton by figuring out "can I climb this log?"

If you are considering investing tens of billions into infrastructure for manufacturing in a country, it seems like a business risk to choose a country that is currently facing genocide charges in the ICC and UN.

And before you brigade me, I'm making no comments about the validity of those charges either way. I'm saying it's an obvious increased risk as an investor. It's possible that Israel becomes subject to sanctions or subject to increased international scrutiny or gets embroiled in regional conflict.

Those seem like business risks that might change the calculus.

> Principal repayment is not an expense.

In the links I posted several comments above, you'll find that it is considered an expense for the purposes of personal savings.

I don't disagree with your definition, btw, it's just not the common one.

The original poster is correct, the majority of Americans live paycheck to paycheck. With no savings (in the personal finance sense).

Example: https://www.forbes.com/advisor/banking/living-paycheck-to-pa...

What's challenging for you about these numbers? Your original response included mortgages in saving, which is atypical. If you exclude mortgages, which is typical, do the numbers make more sense?

> It is not like you are going to go in like a horribly confused idiot and randomly redefine tillage or something.

Try to remain on topic and avoid ad hominem, please.

> There is nothing about savings that implies they must be liquid.

Here are several examples that disagree. Yes, in a strict Keynesian economic sense it is saving but saving is different from savings, despite the similarity in the two words. (Yes, you are right, this is confusing.)

Examples defining "savings" in personal finance:

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/savings.asp

"Savings is essentially cash"

https://www.britannica.com/money/saving

"Saving may take the form of increases in bank deposits, purchases of securities, or increased cash holdings."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saving

"In terms of personal finance, saving generally specifies low-risk preservation of money, as in a deposit account, versus investment, wherein risk is a lot higher."

> Which means that when a home is not underwater, the owner has savings (or breaking even, of course, but that is as equally unlikely and is for all intents and purposes considered to be the same as underwater).

What? It doesn't mean this at all. You can have savings and still be underwater. If you have a 3.5% for your mortgage, but the market crashes after you bought at the peak, you can be underwater because your house lost value. And it would be foolish to pay down the loan rather than get a better rate for your savings.

Underwater mortgages are totally orthogonal concepts to savings.

> if you are paying a mortgage, a portion of that is a portion you are saving

I think I see your confusion. Yes, money saved into a home is an asset that you are building over time. However it's a non liquid asset, it's difficult to turn back into cash for, e.g., a surprise medical bill.

Repayment of a loan meets the strict mathematical definition of "savings" however it is typically excluded (as are, e.g., investments). For instance, the U.S. calculation of GDP does not consider repayment to be saving.

Savings are typically held in checking accounts, savings accounts, CDs, and money market accounts. Some people take a portion of their savings and invest them in higher risk items like stocks and bonds, but those are investments.

It's important to decouple the concepts of net worth (or even just worth) from the concept of "savings" because you can be taking actions that increase net worth (e.g. paying a mortgage) that don't increase one's savings. (Though, eventually, if you sell the home you could put any proceeds into savings.)

Being underwater on a mortgage and not being able to save aren't the same.

A mortgage that is underwater means the value of the home is less than the loan balance. That can happen for any number of reasons.

It doesn't mean anything about your ability to save money. If you make $5k a month and spend $5k on expenses, you can make all your mortgage payments (whether or not that mortgage is underwater) but still not save.

When outlets report savings of Americans they don't typically mean just in savings accounts.

Okay bud, you win. I'll go tell all my gardening buds that the no till practices are "um actually, that's tilling".

Any other pedantry you want me to pass along while doing so?

I could tell them that "actually, tomatoes are a fruit" if it would make you feel better while I was there.

Does it need to be a force in the AI industry? Are we confident the ai industry is healthy and sustainable? I'm certainly not.

Could Apple continue to just make good, desirable hardware and decent os decisions that many people like?

They didn't even cover the chemical composition and harsh structure of the regolith, which makes converting it to soil impossibly difficult and probably a good source of novel lung diseases. Or the low gravity resulting in issues for long term habitants. Or the length of the Martian day being annoyingly close to but not exactly 24 hours which will fuck up some rhythms. Or the general mineral paucity. Or the distance. Or or or.

Mars is incredibly cool as a science fiction destination, but I'd much rather see us target near earth asteroids as space habitats first.

I appreciate this. Suggesting that mental health is "just" a chemical imbalance is maybe addressing a very complicated system with a narrow fix.

That said, I'm likely biased to be predisposed to believe that mental health is a complex system based on other beliefs I hold or experiences I have (e.g. having suffered depression myself, having experienced homelessness, believing in the theory of alienation.)

But also, I don't know what you do to address systems that doesn't require radical or even revolutionary change. We're a far cry from even applying the mental health practices we do have to everyone who wants them today. To say nothing of the massive social stigmas associated with therapy, depression, and medications.

They have on label use as weight loss medicine. It might be discovered first as a side effect, but it's genuinely considered a primary desirable effect these days.

You keep saying it's my confusion. My friend, there is no lazy speaker. It is merely the accepted and understood use of the term in casual conversation.

I understand your semantic argument, there is no confusion, I simply believe language is not prescriptivist. If people use the words in a certain way, then that is an acceptable way to use the words. No argument from a position of "well actually, the dictionary/professional jargon says..." will sway me because I just don't care.

This post mortem is sort of classically underdone. It describes a step that was taken that was in the path of the error, but is not the root cause. The root cause here is not "we copy pasted from chat gpt and it hallucinates", but rather a "our systems allowed this failure to get to production". Which in turn should be met with why? Because we didn't have tests or qa that covers this path. Why?

Keep. Asking. Why.

ChatGPT didn't fail, your system allowed ChatGPT to fail. Answering why is the interesting thing to discuss and blog about.

The farmers I know, who farm thousands upon thousands of acres, are also no till. Plenty of farmers doing the same.

Breaking up soil into large, mostly intact chunks, without turning it over, aeration. See the links above from the peer poster.

Yep, that's the one.

Have you use a broad fork? It's like 4-6 blades spread across ~4 feet. The mechanism of action is totally different, and no, it does not break up the soil in the same way tilling with a spade or rototiller does.

If you are here only to argue semantic and prescriptivist use of language, you can stop responding. I'm not interested. You might be right according to some dictionary definition of these terms. In practical use by gardeners, however, these two techniques have different names and achieve different goals and only one is called tilling.

The point is to build, over years, the kind of soil that fosters germination. You can mix in additives every year and till, or you can build a small ecosystem over time.

Maximizing the ecosystem health of what's underneath the surface is the point.

This person never made any claims about reduction of labor. No till farming and no till gardening are about regenerating soil, not reducing labor.

Tilling, in gardening, usually refers to lifting spadefuls of soil up and out of the ground, turning them over and breaking up the clumps. It's like a kitchen aid stand mixer on your soil.

Aeration with a broad fork doesn't lift the soil out of the ground and definitely doesn't break it up and redistribute it. It just creates a few pockets of stretched space by inserting a fork and wiggling a bit. Yes, small pockets are disturbed by the fork but mostly the soil stays as it was.

Mechanically, tiling and aeration are wildly different operations. What's your "hmmmm" all about?

I have some remote forest land I would love to set some sensors up on. I just need to know exactly what to buy to gather the data, power it with solar, and send the data back via cellular signal.

Unfortunately it's too remote to have any sort of internet signal beyond cellular at the moment.

I'd appreciate any and all ideas folks have, assuming I'm willing to drop a few grand without blinking.

Additionally, it's in an area with wildfire smoke part of the year and id love to have AQI monitoring.

I have some forest land that is remote and I'd like to set up weather sensors on.

I've been stuck on what to purchase, especially since there's no dedicated power or network connections (the site does have cellular access).

The biggest hurdle I have is "here's the full kit of shit you need to buy in that case", any suggestions?

Green ammonia is already being commercially deployed by folks like Talus. Yes, we'd have to invest hard in renewables and nuclear, but it's absolutely achievable. Ammonia production is whole integer percent of global energy use, that's not an impossible number to supply with hydrogen.

Additionally, pulse crop rotation is increasingly being used to provide some free nitrogen to the soil.

Bioreactors with Azotobacter vinelandii are showing promise in providing nitrogen fixing in a reactor.

And like, industrial composting produces fertilizers with plenty of nitrogen. Soybeans, in particular, need no nitrogen inputs and produce plenty of both useful food and nitrogen containing plant matter.

Our wastewater also contains tons of nitrogen, both from biosolids and from agricultural runoff. These are difficult to get at safely, admittedly, but not impossible.

If you pause to think about it, all that manure needs to come from feedstock plus other inputs (water, etc). If you diverted that same feedstock into producing fertilizer (in the case of soybeans) or not producing at all (in the case of dent corn) you'd have plenty of material and a reduced demand. Manure doesn't just magically come from no inputs.

It's expensive but we could absolutely produce green methane with renewable energy.

And there are natural fertilizer paths that aren't cattle.

You've constructed a strawman.

People with autism are human, I assure you.