foobarqux

8 ms·

91.
by foobarqux 1y ago
Also lqn/jqn https://github.com/inconvergent/lqn
92.
by foobarqux 2y ago
Well I trust Elon's statements (even the financial statements) as far as I can throw them but can you point out where it says that? I'm searching the 10-K and I don't see solar broken out. But even if it's true I assume
93.
by foobarqux 2y ago
Putting aside the fact that you can't justify fraud by post-hoc outcomes (Shkreli and SBF also claimed that they didn't commit fraud because they would or did win it back), I doubt any of the Tesla Energy division income (even ass
94.
by foobarqux 2y ago
All this comes down to is that language is not a solved problem. By the same logic why not just stop doing any research in physics and just put everything through a neural net which is going to give better predictions than the current best
95.
by foobarqux 2y ago
> "Of course parsing has occurred. Your history with this person (and people in general) and what you know he likes to say, his mood and body language. Still probabilistic." This is just redefining terms to be so vague as to ma
96.
by foobarqux 2y ago
> If the brain (or a model) processes common structures more quickly ... then the process of parsing sentences is very clearly probabilistic. This isn't true. For one more common sentences are probably structurally simpler and struc
97.
by foobarqux 2y ago
https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/abs/signs-of-a-savant/i...
98.
by foobarqux 2y ago
> If the speed of your understanding varies with how frequent and predictable syntactic structures are then your understanding of syntax is a probabilistic process. In what sense? I don't see how it tells you anything if you have th
99.
by foobarqux 2y ago
> And research on syntactic surprisal—where more predictable syntactic structures are processed faster—shows a strong correlation between the probability of a syntactic continuation and reading times. I'm not sure what this is suppo
100.
by foobarqux 2y ago
As I said it's not relevant but if you wanted to know you could put in the bare minimum of effort into doing your own research. From Smith and Tsimpli's "The Mind of a Savant": "On the [Gapadol Reading Comprehension
101.
by foobarqux 2y ago
First, there is no evidence of any probabilistic processing at the level of syntax in humans (it's irrelevant what computers can do). Second, I didn't say that, in language, structure implies deterministic rules, I said that the
102.
by foobarqux 2y ago
It's irrelevant to the experiment: he could learn synthetic language with human-like grammar and could not learn synthetic languages with non-human-like grammar. Regular people could solve the non-human-like languages with difficulty.
103.
by foobarqux 2y ago
I don't think they have a consistent understanding of the word "grammar": they seem to use it in the grade-school sense (grammar for English, grammar for French) but then refer to Chomsky's universal grammar which is dif
104.
by foobarqux 2y ago
It's a separate study done by someone else: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rgd8BnZ2-iw&t=6735s
105.
by foobarqux 2y ago
I just gave one: "Chris". Here's Chomsky describing the "Chris"-experiments ([1]) as part of a broader answer about how language is distinct from general cognition which I paraphrased above. > That doesn't c
106.
by foobarqux 2y ago
That's not true, the Moro experiments show they use different capacities as do similar experiments on people who have certain severe cognitive deficiencies that don't impact language processing (e.g. the subject "Chris")
107.
by foobarqux 2y ago
As I said there are universal rules that human language processing follows (like hierarchical structure dependence); you can't have arbitrary syntax/grammars. It's true that science hasn't solved the main puzzles about h
108.
by foobarqux 2y ago
This is just wrong. Languages follow certain inviolable rules, most notably, hierarchical structure dependence. There are experiments (Moro, the subject "Chris") that show that humans don't process synthetic languages that vi
109.
by foobarqux 2y ago
Yes for certain things like statistical trading (assuming some kind of "nice" Gaussian-like distribution) where you have lots of trades and just need to be more right than wrong it's probably useful. Not here though, where yo
110.
by foobarqux 2y ago
Yeah, Taleb has some pretty convincing arguments that correlation is generally bad/misleading and entropy is better.
111.
by foobarqux 2y ago
The correlations are 0.25-0.5, which is quite poor (Gaussian distribution plots with those correlations look like noise). That's before analyzing the methodology and assumptions.
112.
Tesla's law firm drafts Delaware bill that could salvage Musk pay package(cnbc.com)
13 points by foobarqux 2y ago|2 comments
113.
by foobarqux 2y ago
There are shell options you need to set to, for example, make shell history saving work when multiple terminals are used (the defaults are bad). Read the manual
114.
by foobarqux 2y ago
https://archive.ph/woOHH
115.
Elon Musk's Business Empire Scores Benefits Under Trump Shake-Up(nytimes.com)
15 points by foobarqux 2y ago|8 comments
116.
by foobarqux 2y ago
It's intentionally misleading, they are technically saying they will meet the takeoff and landing requirements (which they are required to meet by law) but implying that the plane is going to be quiet at cruise (which they want to perf
117.
by foobarqux 2y ago
> ... meeting the same strict regulatory noise levels as the latest subsonic airplanes Extremely dishonest: as far as I can tell (CFR title 14, B36.5) there are no specific noise level regulations for subsonic cruise flight (i.e. not tak
118.
by foobarqux 2y ago
It’s amazing the checkboxes that stick out: having a dog for no reason for dog lovers; the relationship slop that appeals to women; the violence and sex slop to appeal to men.
119.
by foobarqux 2y ago
I don’t remember the program but in the years of broadcast TV there was a writer on a nightly talk show explaining why all TV episodes were so bland. He said that he wrote an intricate plot for TV which was rejected because the show had to
120.
by foobarqux 2y ago
What are you talking about? The stock can go down so that isn’t guaranteed. The bonds can also go down if bitcoin goes down enough. The convertible bonds can go down for the same reasons.

More ›