Can’t those both be true at the same time?

The “system” is working as intended by the rich elite/<insert antagonist>, which means that it’s fundamentally broken for the general populace, and therefore must be fixed, which is easiest done by first destroying and then rebuilding it?

Seems like an oxymoron to me, but I’m not entirely sure of the context.

You thought journalism had reached rock bottom already? Watch this:

Oh, no no, I was talking about the down votes that you’ve been receiving. My bad!

Doesn’t matter, it’s fun to see how far you can bend definitions (and I did go rather far with that one).

Also, I’m not sure where those down votes are coming from. Showerthoughts don’t need to be fully logical, taking all edge cases into account, etc. After all, it’s just a showerthought to discuss and joke/awe about.

In that case, you’d never see anything through anything but a “screen” because of the lens in your eye. (Using the definition of “screen” to be a “barrier”, which in this case provokes a transformation, or projection, of light.)

Ideally, a .mp4, or any other non-executable file format, would not be able to execute rogue code on your computer, but the programs you use to open the files with might have security flaws which allow rogue code execution if done right.

You might have a hypothetical file, which might not be dangerous if opened with VLC, but which exploits a flaw in, say, Windows Media Player version x.y.z to execute a payload.

Sorry, for not including any examples, I’m currently not at the PC.

Dunno about kids, but I’ve seen my fair share of grown men who appear to think so.

Ladders tend to be more stable if you lean them on the tree trunk, and not the branch you’re about to saw off.

I think i read that fighter pilots need to be able to identify a plane in one frame at 300 fps, and that the theoretical limit of the eye is 1000+ fps.

Though, whether the brain can manage to process the data at 1000+ fps is questionable.

Hurr hurr, I’m gonna plot f(x,y)=x^2+y3 where y=x for x limit inf. Checkmate science!

Edit: the graph isn’t actually linear, man, and here I just thought it’d be that easy. :(

This is the way!

Way simpler than using any GUI tool or somehow recreating the partition and manually copying the files.

Not sure if i understand the request, but there’s the [email protected] community if you’re looking for open signups.

Pretty sure Leif Eriksson landed in Vinland before Columbus landed in the Bahamas.

In other words, I’ll be formulating a proposal to Mette-Mink to reclaim what only can belong to the (once) glorious Denmark!

“Knowledge is never useless”

Going on a tangent here: While I fully agree with the above, there is an amount of knowledge after which fact checking becomes bothersome, and some people just skip fact checking overall. One could argue that, while knowledge is never useless, unchecked knowledge might become bothersome or dangerous.

See flatearthers, scientology, etc. for extreme examples.

~~“Batteries” is a rather broad category.

Are we talking hydroelectric batteries? Other potential or kinetic batteries? Chemical batteries (and what subcategory)? Or maybe hydrogen-based power storages?

Since there’s a dam on the list, I’d imagine “batteries” to be electrolytic power stores or hydrogen fuel cells, but the visualization remains lazy and perhaps borderline misinformative (depending on how nit-picky you are).

EDIT: The illustration might also use a simplified definition of a battery (to store, excluding conversion between kinds of power) instead of the different battery technologies which exist or the full definition, which could have one argue that batteries aren’t renewable by definition.

Though, that might be reading too much into it.~~

Actually, never mind, I’m probably too tired to go out on an adventure about the technicalities of the definition of “battery” to make any real amount of sense and not fall into edge cases.

I also misread “energy source” as “renewable”…

You don’t have to sanitize the weights, you have to sanitize the data you use to get the weights. Two very different things, and while I agree that sanitizing a LLM after training is close to impossible, sanitizing the data you give it is much, much easier.

Oh no, it’s very difficult, especially on the scale of LLMs.

That said, we others (those of us who have any amount of respect towards ourselves, our craft, and our fellow human) have been sourcing our data carefully since way before NNs, such as asking the relevant authority for it (ex. asking the post house for images of handwritten destinations).

Is this slow and cumbersome? Oh yes. But it delays the need for over-restrictive laws, just like with RC crafts before drones. And by extension, it allows those who could not source the material they needed through conventional means, or those small new startups with no idea what they were doing, to skim the gray border and still get a small and hopefully usable dataset.

And now, someone had the grand idea to not only scour and scavenge the whole internet with no abandon, but also boast about it. So now everyone gets punished.

At last: don’t get me wrong, laws are good (duh), but less restrictive or incomplete laws can be nice as long as everyone respects each other. I’m excited to see what the future brings in this regard, but I hate the idea that those who facilitated this change likely are the only ones to go free.

So now LLM makers actually have to sanitize their datasets? The horror…

We get to choose the genes when genetically modifying, and it usually takes a few years (plus health metrics and research once complete).

Contrary, when selectively breeding we can breed for traits which we are not guaranteed to actually get, and it takes a few decades (plus health metrics and research once complete).

Partly. A feed is typically a set of rules showing you only your interests and filtering out everything else, and within this subset you then go about choosing.

Ideally we would not only have “women\men\bi” categories, but also “orthodox (cis only)\regular(mixed)\frisky(trans only)” categories. Otherwise, we might run into the problems which Saltesc describes, now that being trans is becoming more commonplace.

There needs to be space for everybody (or “everybody whom I don’t mind” depending on who you ask, sad lol), but while choices always have some consequences, we need to be careful that our freedom of choice doesn’t become another’s choice of freedom. I think trans people are (sadly) very well acquainted with this.

I’ve heard of people who have complained about trans people showing up in their dating feed, mixed in with the cis population, being labelled as “transphobes” and harassed, but good to know that we’ve overcome that.