MarkusQ

17 ms·

421.
by MarkusQ 8mo ago
That's called projecting. If someone doesn't send a signal, but you believe you received it, that's on you, not them. You may _think_ the color of their skin or hair or the way they talk or dress or whatever "means&#x2
422.
by MarkusQ 8mo ago
Or will be, soon. :)
423.
by MarkusQ 8mo ago
Unfortunately, you also sometimes throw out explanations like "they did X in substantially the same way as their descents were doing X up until the late 1800s" or "they used it for Y, just at it was used at other sites throug
424.
by MarkusQ 8mo ago
Certainly. Land bridges are also a thing. As is swimming, in some cases.
425.
by MarkusQ 8mo ago
And for the record, my grump here is about soft / organic tools and artifacts and coastal / high weathering sites being discounted while everyone falls all over themselves for rocks and bones, even if fake. No aliens, just weaver
426.
by MarkusQ 8mo ago
The Kamitakamori tools? Piltdown fossils? The pattern roughly seems to be "if you have physical artifacts that support a theory / fit a pattern they will be accepted (even if bogus) but if you have a theory that explains facts (
427.
by MarkusQ 8mo ago
I've started suspecting I'm looking back of the day where that happened.
428.
by MarkusQ 8mo ago
Quite frustrating how archeology swings over the years from "we'll believe anything" to "we won't accept any claim without a preserved example". While some of the excesses of the past were clearly excessive, d
429.
by MarkusQ 8mo ago
Interesting that this seems like a slam-dunk argument for why reusable rockets and other improvements are practically impossible (e.g. "we might be able to achieve a microscopic improvement in efficiency or reliability, but to make any
430.
by MarkusQ 8mo ago
That's not only the source of "Scalier" but, from the looks of it, a significant chunk of the embedded e-mail thing. So it was maybe just copied from a bluesky thread?
431.
by MarkusQ 8mo ago
Would be interested in a source for this claim, but it from the map it at least looks reasonable. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marunouchi_Line#/media/File:To...
432.
by MarkusQ 8mo ago
As I understand it, the Olmecs were around maybe 1500BC to 300BC or so at the outside. Yet the article says "32 BC seemed awfully early for the Olmecs to carve this stone". WTF? Early? They'd been mostly gone for hundreds
433.
by MarkusQ 8mo ago
This is goofy. The difference was originally regional (US/UK), and which caught on depended on which product dominated which sub-market. There's no semantic difference.
434.
by MarkusQ 8mo ago
Right, I know he existed. But what is he doing in this article? I'm loath to cry "LLM!" but this seems like a really weird error for a human to make. Sort of like getting Babe Ruth, Ruth Bader Ginsberg and the Lindbergh Ba
435.
by MarkusQ 8mo ago
That's an interesting perspective. Thing is, that would be a rebuttal if I'd said something about the underlying tensor fiddling code being understood, and you were claiming that next token prediction was a mysterious emergent phe
436.
by MarkusQ 8mo ago
This seems weirdly...off. Take the reference to Julius Scalier. What in the heck is he doing here? Did somebody do a quick and sloppy search for Julius Caesar? Or mangle Joseph Justus Scaliger and Julius Caesar together and try to take
437.
by MarkusQ 8mo ago
Sorry, can't tell if that's sarcasm or not. I wasn't referring to the biomechanical process of walking, I was referring to the process of gradient descent, which is well understood and yes, quite simple.
438.
by MarkusQ 8mo ago
> We really have no idea how did ability to have a conversation emerge from predicting the next token. Uh yes, we do. It works in precisely the same way that you can walk from "here" to "there" by taking a step towar
439.
by MarkusQ 8mo ago
Prior work with the same vibe: https://xkcd.com/1007/
440.
by MarkusQ 8mo ago
Sadly, this is true. Journalists presenting the whole story would be wonderful, but I don't think we're likely to see it soon.
441.
by MarkusQ 8mo ago
> Wrong. Journalists have an obligation to favor the truth. I'm not sure why you think we're disagreeing on this part. I'm explicitly asserting that they need to seek truth rather than pushing an agenda. > If a party i
442.
by MarkusQ 8mo ago
The problem isn't that news outlets favor the wrong side (as TFA seems to assert) but that they favor any side at all. Once they abandon the attempt to report the facts and start trying to shape public opinion, they're going to g
443.
by MarkusQ 9mo ago
The markets and I agree then. I'm a firm believer in technological progress, but not so fond of group-think hype trains. The LLM/diffusion breakthrough(s) are huge, but they aren't what their rabid fans/neurotic critics
444.
by MarkusQ 9mo ago
Intrinsically good, but in conflict with some larger, out of band concern that the contributor could have no way to know about? Upvote to take the sting out of rejection, along with a note along the lines of "Well done, and we would m
445.
by MarkusQ 9mo ago
It has been noticed before. It's called Catastrohe Theory.
446.
by MarkusQ 9mo ago
And they don't even seem to have noticed Catastrophe Theory, which was based on the study of exactly this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catastrophe_theory
447.
by MarkusQ 9mo ago
Because Philosophy need serious medical attention?
448.
by MarkusQ 9mo ago
>> That's why you block ALL ads. Starve the beast. If an app has ads, I do not use it, end of story. > Unfortunately the "beast" is the Internet content itself. So be it. It's like someone realizing that their c
449.
by MarkusQ 9mo ago
Sadly, they "learned" it from us. People have been doing this sort of shoddy fill work since the dawn of television (and even earlier if you count wildly misplaced / inaccurate textual descriptions).
450.
by MarkusQ 9mo ago
That study has...issues. https://human-settlement.emergency.copernicus.eu/ruralPopDis...

More ›