EnigmaFlare

14 ms·

91.
by EnigmaFlare 2y ago
Maybe they just never had desktop PCs? Mine has a ps/2 port, various different colored USB type A ports, USB type C, DVI, HDMI, RJ-45, 3.5mm audio, and I just bought a M.2 PCIe adapter card because SSDs have two different popular inter
92.
by EnigmaFlare 2y ago
Good point about being natural rather than tied to base 10. Though natural conflicts with human convenience and ultimately is is for humans. Even more natural could be using the same unit for mass and energy, and make it dimensionless!
93.
by EnigmaFlare 2y ago
For mathy subjects you usually have to verify things yourself so you'd detect any mistakes as you try to work things out or makes sense of the information. You can't learn math, physics or theory for engineering by remembering and
94.
by EnigmaFlare 2y ago
If you go that far into respecting things, why stop at life? We treat molecules pretty poorly, ripping them apart, discarding their unwanted body parts, etc. So it's a bit silly to base morals on anthropomorphism. Instead, these long-l
95.
by EnigmaFlare 2y ago
Are you suggesting we're already good enough at measuring the mass of atoms and no further precision will ever be needed? Otherwise, your statement would have been equally valid 100 years ago by just taking some significant figures off
96.
by EnigmaFlare 2y ago
Can you write out a specific calculation using Avogadro's number/moles/u/etc. so I can do the same without those and see if it's actually any easier? "treat 1 gram as 1 u and just work in moles" Surely tha
97.
by EnigmaFlare 2y ago
That system would last only as long as nobody wanted any more precision than you could get from measuring hydrogen atoms. Then they're do what they've always done and redefine it to something uglier but which can be measured more
98.
by EnigmaFlare 2y ago
Those are the mass numbers from the periodic table which are exact integers and chemists probably know in their heads. If you have to look up a 4-digit number, it's not easier to look up or use 12.01 u instead of 19.95 yg, especially w
99.
by EnigmaFlare 2y ago
Let me try to do it without Avogadro's number approximately: m_oxygen / m_carbon = (n_oxygen * A_oxygen) / (n_carbon * A_carbon) m_oxygen = x * (2 * 16) / (1 * 12) = 2.7 x and more accurately: m_oxygen &#x
100.
by EnigmaFlare 2y ago
That's not the vegan reason at all. If it was, it would permit eating free-range chickens as you say, and cows. Meat cows have a great life. They're given plenty of food, protection from predators, and when they are killed, it&#x2
101.
by EnigmaFlare 2y ago
Instead of having Avogadro's number at all, chemists could just count using numbers like we do for everything else. We already have the prefixes to make 10^+/-24 easy. No need to re-define it, just stop using it. It's nothing
102.
by EnigmaFlare 2y ago
If that's the case, then a huge amount of useful intelligent-seeming stuff that humans do isn't intelligence because it can already be done by LLMs. You can keep calling them not intelligent all you like but they're already d
103.
by EnigmaFlare 2y ago
Nonsense. You can't even define some of those words or know how to measure or identify them in humans. Well, foreign language learners do "reading comprehension tests" but an LLM can already ace that and it's not really
104.
by EnigmaFlare 2y ago
I'm trying to say that copyright restricts copying, not using. If you publish something on the internet, you implicitly give people limited permission to copy it so their browser can download it. Once it's on their computer, they&
105.
by EnigmaFlare 2y ago
It'd be the organizations spending public money submitting their data. So randoms won't have access to submit things.
106.
by EnigmaFlare 2y ago
"attended by white supremacists" doesn't mean "attended exclusively by white supremacists". Why not show how you know that all of them were?
107.
by EnigmaFlare 2y ago
They had been transparent and it led to workers finding loopholes to make it unfair on each other. So there is value in opaqueness in that it's harder to exploit. But really a properly fair and transparent system would be better still.
108.
by EnigmaFlare 2y ago
A nice thing about .Net Framework 4.8 is that they finally finished it! No more update treadmill and dicking around dealing with what versions are installed or how to configure your application to use whatever different versions. Just targe
109.
by EnigmaFlare 2y ago
If AI stagnates, then some human will out-perform it and be able to sell their work. The AI won't be able to generate competitive work because it's stagnant at a lower level. I'm not arguing free market is all positive, just
110.
by EnigmaFlare 2y ago
To help me understand you, imagine if AI were as good as it is but somehow not trained on anyone else's material without their explicit permission. Would everything be OK then? It's still undermining an indie author or musician&#x
111.
by EnigmaFlare 2y ago
Fundamentally that's the problem of allocating scarce resources. If they're not allocated to whoever pays the most, it would be some other way which still excludes people. Maybe it's to the people who promise to fight for the
112.
by EnigmaFlare 2y ago
Yep. Importantly, employment contracts. Employees are extremely resistant to wage decreases but they'll passively tolerate it in the form of inflation. Without inflation, they'd have to be fired and replaced with someone else just
113.
by EnigmaFlare 2y ago
> So if you publish, say, a novel or some expensively researched reporting online, you are now to assume it's legal to have an "AI" paraphrase it and sell it on Kindle? Or MS monetize it on their scummy "Microsoft Sta
114.
by EnigmaFlare 2y ago
That material with restrictions on use would fall under the "grey area" he referred to. You're essentially not given permission to download/copy it if you're going to do the prohibited thing with it. But if it'
115.
by EnigmaFlare 2y ago
This misunderstanding is getting out of hand. That's not what he was saying at all! He was talking about sites that say things like "you're not allowed to even scrape our content unless it's for search engine indexing&qu
116.
by EnigmaFlare 2y ago
I'm not talking about distributing the model, just its output, which won't be something the user can non-creatively transform into a Jay-Z sample. However, if the model really can't regenerate its training data no matter how
117.
by EnigmaFlare 2y ago
Extremely close but not exact copying is already not allowed. Human artists have tried that. Just because AI threatens to produce equally valuable material for much lower cost doesn't mean that's wrong. It just means those people
118.
by EnigmaFlare 2y ago
I don't think you'd be breaking the law doing that. As long as you don't reproduce any of the MS-owned material in your output. Data isn't protected by copyright (in the US at least), so your AI could extract the knowled
119.
by EnigmaFlare 2y ago
I think people are getting confused between using something and redistributing it. If you train an AI or build a search engine index, or your browser caches a webpage, you're just using it, and it was put on the web so that it can be u
120.
by EnigmaFlare 2y ago
It's not known in Australia where you have to have a prescription to buy a vape but can buy cigarettes freely. Apparently they're relaxing the prescription requirement later in the year but still only pharmacies will be allowed to

More ›