MarkusQ

15 ms·

391.
by MarkusQ 8mo ago
Also, neither is zero based, making a 60% drop (bluesky) and a 15% drop (x) look comparable.
392.
by MarkusQ 8mo ago
My generation totally missed the signposts when we RFC'd our way into insecure by default e-mail (and later, web) protocols. In hindsight, it's amazing things held together as long as they did. It looks like every generation has
393.
by MarkusQ 8mo ago
Really nice to see the process of thinking it through. This sort of thing gives a much better insight than just memorizing formulas.
394.
by MarkusQ 8mo ago
Every skeptic was once a trusting babe-in-arms, as was every grifter. People have more agency, more ability to choose their fate than you're giving them credit for here.
395.
by MarkusQ 8mo ago
The easiest way to do that is to block the social media sites at your firewall. You may have a few false positive (maybe 1% or so?) but that should be minor compared to the time savings.
396.
by MarkusQ 8mo ago
Computational power. Without self attention, you have a sloppy implementation of something called a PDA (push-down-automaton) -- like an old HP calculator. With it, you have an even sloppier implementation of a Turing machine. So (modulo
397.
by MarkusQ 8mo ago
> Don't believe the latest fashion on social media, including the latest thing it's fashionable to be sceptical about. I don't think choosing to believe in something just because other people are piling on being skeptical
398.
by MarkusQ 8mo ago
Common carrier vs. curated platform?
399.
by MarkusQ 8mo ago
The meta strategy seems clear: if the world seems full of grifters, stop being a Mark, and start being a Skeptic. Or, I suppose, go on thinking this time is different.
400.
by MarkusQ 8mo ago
Or (taking the other side) failure to notice the distinction between a technology and a pump-and-dump. The technology (attention/diffusion) is awesome. The hype is unbelievable. Literally.
401.
by MarkusQ 8mo ago
It's not unsubstantiated though. The claim is "People frequently assert that 'this time is different' and they are almost always wrong" and it proceeded to provide a reasonable list of analogous manias. This only d
402.
by MarkusQ 8mo ago
You just moved the goal post. Saying that experts are less likely to do X doesn't say anything about the relative harm of their doing so. If some rando on the streets is shouting their opinion about what causes Alzheimer's and as
403.
by MarkusQ 8mo ago
But peer review (circa 1965-2010[1]) is just the prior iteration of the problem[2]; the wave of crap[3] produced by publish or perish (crica 1950-present[4]). Rejecting papers by outsiders is irrelevant; the problem is we want to determine
404.
by MarkusQ 8mo ago
Versus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority See also: https://www.science.org/content/article/potential-fabricatio... Amateur's asserting their opinions as facts isn&#x2
405.
by MarkusQ 8mo ago
You're begging the question. Why does it need to talk to a web front end or app? Why does any appliance need this? (I know they all claim to need it, but it isn't at all clear why this (supposedly) needs to be the case.) For th
406.
by MarkusQ 8mo ago
Well, if we're going by what "most people would accept" we should probably allow: * This product is fast/lightweight. * This product is fast. Lightweight. But yeah, this way lies madness. Unless we passed somewhere it
407.
by MarkusQ 8mo ago
This boils down to an "is Pluto a planet" debate. We act as if some languages have "compound words" that can encompass entire sentences (subject & object attaching to the verb as prefixes or suffixes) while others do
408.
by MarkusQ 8mo ago
But is it even an error? You are parsing it as a single list, but it could just as well be parsed as "subj ((is {a,b}) and vp-predicate)". I guess you could argue that the first list needs an "and"? That's fair I
409.
by MarkusQ 8mo ago
> parallel construction errors, like "This product is fast, lightweight, and won't break the bank!" I'm failing to see the error. That seems like perfectly sound, vernacular English.
410.
by MarkusQ 8mo ago
> a robot vaccum needs local WiFi No, it doesn't. Unless it's supposed to spy on you (or "harvest training data") there's no reason it needs to phone home at all (c.f. Roombas).
411.
by MarkusQ 8mo ago
And the manufacturer wants something that's under their control, not your.
412.
by MarkusQ 8mo ago
Touché.
413.
by MarkusQ 8mo ago
Meta nit pick: You are conflating linguist's jargon with mathematician's jargon. In much the same way as physicists co-opted common words (e.g. "work" and "energy") to mean very specific things in technical con
414.
by MarkusQ 8mo ago
In many cases canned food is a lot closer to fresh than frozen or instant would be. In any case, those are ingredients (analogous to...libraries I guess?) and not to the whole application. If you served someone a canned sandwich or canned
415.
by MarkusQ 8mo ago
I suppose, in exactly the same way instant / frozen food makes cooking more enjoyable. If it was just a chore that you had to do, and now it's faster, sure, grab that cup-o-noodles. Knock yourself out. Just don't expect to
416.
by MarkusQ 8mo ago
This is really interesting, but it appears to hinge on an unstated (and unjustified) assumption: that scientists learn by back propagation, or something sufficiently similar that back propagation is a reasonable model. It also: * Bakes in t
417.
by MarkusQ 8mo ago
I think they poo-poo it because it tends to produce just-so stories that "explain" known facts while saying nothing about anything beyond them. To an extent, all hypotheses arise from observations (and more specifically, the fris
418.
by MarkusQ 8mo ago
Oh yeah. I'm not saying that's the only way things can go off the rails. But with regard to "When Prophesy Fails" specifically, TFA says: "A new paper finds a different story in the archives of the lead author, Le
419.
by MarkusQ 8mo ago
Surprisingly many things seem to be spoiled by the "too many of the people being studied were actually other researchers trying to study the same thing" (or even more commonly, students being taught about the thing). I suspect the
420.
by MarkusQ 8mo ago
> You can call it whatever you want but people make inferences. This isn't about what it's called, it's about who's doing it. If people make inferences, that's something being done by the people making the infer

More ›