I think any explanation along those lines would have a "just-so" aspect to it. How would we go about verifying such a thing? Perhaps if we compared and contrasted the eyes of savanna apes to forest apes, and saw a difference, which to my knowledge We do not. Anyway, sunlight at the ground level peaks around 555nm, so it's believed that we're optimizing to that by being more sensitive to green.
Huh? Are you saying that Pelosi is a worse person because MTG is a worse person? I don't get the logic.
Given the situation (that it's unfortunately legal for them to do this) I don't blame either one for taking money left on the table. Why forgo a financial windfall, who benefits by that? The voters should back candidates who will change the law, and then we can talk about criminality and not selective hypocrisy outrage.
I have never in my life imagined that someone might break up with another person for the sole reason that the person refused to poop in front of them. That is honestly wild to me, but I appreciate your perspective, thanks for sharing.
Also, certainly someone can have principled opposition to DEI without being called a Nazi. But frankly, having a wife or kids "of color" doesn't necessarily prove anything one way or another. Lots of plantation owners in the 19th century also had biracial kids while somehow maintaining their raging bigotry. We humans are quite skilled at compartmentalizing.
I'm more curious about what their thoughts are. They have to know what the community thinks about these moves. What do they intend to accomplish? I'd like to hear the roadmap from the lion's mouth, so to speak, if they have some kind of justification that would make sense to the skeptical observer.
Legality is a long standing term of art used by chess problem creators. Essentially it means a position withtwo kings on the board, non touching, and not both in check. And no pawns on first or eighth ranks. It has nothing to do with whether the position is reachable from standard chess rules. Along came FIDE in 1999 with its standardized nomenclature but that doesn't invalidate the terminology used by chess problem creators in their own work.
Well there's your answer right there. Communal living is discouraged because our capitalist society uses the fear of homelessness to force people onto the work treadmill. Either join the rat race or it's the streets for you. And now living rough is being made illegal as well, so it's labor camps.
Surely there is a way to implement a "taking a break" policy without purposely squalid concentration camps, extradition to random gulags, sudden capricious fees, legions of masked shock troops, and the like?
> That's because actual malice IS rare. Corporations are not filled with evil people,
Corporations don't have to be filled with evil people for malice to be rampant. All it takes is for one person in a position of power or influence who is highly motivated to screw over other human beings to create a whole lot of malice. We can all think of examples of public officials or powerful individuals who have made it their business to spread misery to countless others. Give them a few like-minded deputies and the havoc they wreak can be incalculable.
As for Hitler, if we can't even agree that orchestrating and facilitating the death of millions of innocent people is malicious, then malice has no meaning.
C. S. Lewis has written a great many excellent things, but his quote there strikes me as self-satisfied sophistry. Ask people being carpet bombed or blockade and starved if they're grateful that at least their adversary isn't trying to help them.
Are you talking about the tit-for-tat strategy in the Prisoner's Dilemma? That's a particular toy model with an exaggeratedly punitive payoff matrix. But not every daily interaction can be reasonably mapped onto that matrix. A random interaction with a brusque stranger in a queue isn't necessarily going to result in a good outcome for your being rude ('defecting') in a tit-for-tat. If anything it might cause you more stress and embarrassment than if you'd remained mum.
As a native speaker my feeling is that if we're talking about "I'll try and X" vs "I'll try to X," they're mm@$be asking you neutrally to attempt something for the first time, but "try and get home without taking any detours" sounds as, if we've been through this issue on several occasions, and now I'm annoyed.
Information is never 100% reliable no matter the source, but for LLMs certain types of information is less reliable than other types. Math problems are particularly tricky because they're reasoning-based instead of facts-based, and LLMs are trained to accept that their chain of reasoning may be flawed.
My takeaway is that if you just need to do calculations, use a calculator.
I think realistically the US is unfortunately never going to protect Taiwan. There's no way I see it getting into an unwinnable hot war with China over territory so close to the mainland. If China sent troops to secure the Taiwanese fabs, how could the US possibly dislodge them without destroying the thing they want to protect? The focus on the CHIPS Act by both recent administrations seems an admission that they don't expect to rely on Taiwan's production long term. The question is will China sit back and let TSMC complete factories in the US, or will it invade Taiwan first? I've seen estimates that Beijing expects to surpass Taiwan's fab abilities in as soon as five years, so perhaps they don't even care about the US acquiring expertise that will be obsolete by the time it is built. Hopefully a knowledgeable individual can correct my extremely limited understanding of this issue.
There's plenty of things to roast Altman about, but this isn't really one of them. A specialized problem might not be understood by someone unversed in that field even if the solution is simple and knowable. "What is the Euler characteristic of a torus?" for a rudimentary off-the-cuff example. Altman could easily know or check the answer ("0") without ever understanding the meaning of the question.
It's absolutely a legitimate concern but since this robot project has no chance of replacing humanity, it seems like a derail in terms of the subject matter of the video. It's as if someone posted a link to an incremental advancement in graphene aluminum-ion battery tech and a person chimed in with a general lament about heavy metal battery toxic waste disposal.
If those jobs are really absolutely vital, in a basic income regime they would be well paying enough to entice people to earn the extra disposable income.
Assuming both people are obtaining the same level of enjoyment, why is goofing around online considered "rotting" compared with streaming and doing art at home? I'm not trying to knock hobbies, but I think being alive and content is its own reward, even if the person is lacking a résumé of daily achievements to rattle off at dinner parties.
For those like me who aren't familiar with this topic, SCP stands for Special Containment Procedures. The SCP Foundation is an online fictional shared universe hosted on https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com with various works of genre fiction in the urban paranormal/sf area, accompanied by various fake documents and bureaucratic procedures involving weird anomalies, artifacts, and creatures. SCP-055 is one such anomaly. More info on wikipedia:
That doesn't work for all industries though. iPhones and other mass luxury/ "masstige" goods are essentially high-end commodities. Apple can't stay rich just selling to richies, they need poor sods to line up to buy millions upon millions of Apple devices. And that can't happen if aforementioned sods have no income. Same with most electronics, with most travel, with autos, with apparel, most restaurants, videogames, furnishings and appliances, etc. Income inequality can only go so far without dire economic consequences. If the non-wealthy become a mere rounding error in terms of aggregate purchasing power, then we simply won't be able to buy enough to keep these lifestyle manufacturers flush.