MarkusQ

25 ms·

481.
by MarkusQ 10mo ago
Not every story needs to have a bad guy. In many cases (I suspect this is one of them) there is room for multiple bad guys. Why couldn't the FTC, Roomba Management, Wall Street, China, etc. all be at fault? Seems like it fits the evi
482.
by MarkusQ 10mo ago
But you don't receive more than a single binary value; you get a yes or no. If both of these are equally likely, you gain one bit of information, the maximum possible amount. If you already have other information about the situation,
483.
by MarkusQ 10mo ago
That's not how information works. Learning more from one outcome than the other decreases the probability of that outcome occurring, so the expected information (which is the sum of the outcome probability times the outcome informati
484.
by MarkusQ 10mo ago
"Went" is a powerful word. With suitable helpers it can replace "proceeded", as you demonstrated, "attended" ("I went to a good school") as well as "became" ("On hearing this, Joe went
485.
by MarkusQ 10mo ago
According to the article, ~1 parsec, or something like 1-10 light years (further, less effect; closer, you disrupt the protoplanetary disk).
486.
by MarkusQ 10mo ago
:face-palm: Much better than either of my theories.
487.
by MarkusQ 10mo ago
I'd buy everything but "borderline".
488.
by MarkusQ 10mo ago
This is either pseudo-mystical nonsense or a simple category error, depending on charitable you care to be. The charitable interpretation is that the authors think an argument for interdisciplinary research must begin by disparaging one of
489.
by MarkusQ 10mo ago
Latecomers to the field may be tempted to write this off as antiquated (though updated to cover transformers, attention, etc.) but a better framing would be that it is _grounded_. Understanding the range of related approaches is key to und
490.
by MarkusQ 10mo ago
Right. And so is the article. When you are introducing an object you need to specify its properties, _including_those_it_inherits from objects you haven't defined. If I haven't defined mammals, I say that bats are warm blooded a
491.
by MarkusQ 10mo ago
In an abstract algebra textbook, they define groups first and then abelian as a property that some groups have. Here, the author is defining abelian groups "from scratch" and doesn't have an earlier definition of groups to l
492.
by MarkusQ 10mo ago
Did anyone else read the headline and think....Zilog? WTF?
493.
by MarkusQ 10mo ago
So...an abelian group is both associative (because it's a group) and commutative (because it's abelian), which is exactly what the OP said? It sounds like you're disagreeing about something, but I'm not clear what your
494.
by MarkusQ 10mo ago
> But it seems to be an extreme overreach for the FSF to use their license (and that “or any later version” backdoor clause) to start pushing their views on the hardware world. Nothing is stopping the "hardware world" from deve
495.
by MarkusQ 11mo ago
Why not ECC though? Unless this is a latched output of a robust system being held for use by another robust system I guess?
496.
by MarkusQ 11mo ago
This is silly. Rapidly refreshing the data that was (presumably) flipped by a cosmic ray last time won't do anything to prevent an error in whatever it hits next time. Unless the theory is that cosmic rays are somehow more likely to
497.
by MarkusQ 11mo ago
Interestingly, the report from which they draw that number is one of the few that they cite but do not link to. Here's a link: https://www.scribd.com/document/883045105/SpaceX-Gen1-Gen2-S... It also notes th
498.
by MarkusQ 11mo ago
They don't really lie, they just produce text. But the Eliza effect is amazingly powerful. Applying the same reward strategy to the answer itself would be a more intellectually honest approach, but would rub our noses in the fact that
499.
by MarkusQ 11mo ago
"N-body simulation" doesn't mean what it's normally taken to mean here. And the colliding gasses models have the huge assumption of random/thermal motion. These satellites are in carefully designed orbits; they are
500.
by MarkusQ 11mo ago
Agreed. This reads more like a hit-piece than a good-faith effort to quantify the risks. They make long-tail pessimistic assumptions, explicitly ignore possible mitigating factors, and act as if this "worse than worst case" scen
501.
by MarkusQ 11mo ago
> Using a sans serif font generally helps anyone with difficulty distinguishing letters so dyslexic, low vision, aging vision etc. So far as I'm aware, there is very little actual evidence to support this oft-repeated claim. It all
502.
by MarkusQ 11mo ago
> Most people tend not to Except the whole rationale for going to Calibri in the first place was that it was supposedly more accessible due to being easier to OCR.
503.
by MarkusQ 11mo ago
It's a recurring phenomena, c.f. "AI winter" and the cycle before and after. We're too easily fooled by our mistaken models of the problem, it's difficulty, and what constitutes progress, so are perpetually fooled b
504.
by MarkusQ 11mo ago
Yep. But be careful, somebody doesn't like when you say that. https://news.ycombinator.com/context?id=46136301
505.
by MarkusQ 11mo ago
Cool, but a little more thought on the content rather than the presentation would improve it. For example starting with an arbitrary segment of DNA double helix and saying how "tall" this arbitrary segment is, is just silly. Inst
506.
by MarkusQ 11mo ago
Right. If someone asks "What does ChatGPT think about ...", I'd fully agree that they're being lazy. But if that's _not_ what they ask, we shouldn't assume that that's what they meant. We should at least
507.
by MarkusQ 11mo ago
> why would you prefer my writing from an LLM generated one? Because I'm interested in hearing your voice, your thoughts, as you express them, for the same reason I like eating real fruit, grown on a tree, to sucking high-fructose f
508.
by MarkusQ 11mo ago
This begs the question. You are assuming they wanted an LLM generated response, but were to lazy to generate one. Isn't it more likely that the reason they didn't use an LLM is that they didn't want an LLM response, so givi
509.
by MarkusQ 11mo ago
Go ahead, use em—let the haters stew in their own typographically-impoverished purgatory.
510.
by MarkusQ 11mo ago
Did you agree with it before the AI wrote it though (in which case, what was the point of involving the AI)? If you agree with it after seeing it, but wouldn't have thought to write it yourself, what reason is there to believe you woul

More ›