kbrkbr

15 ms·

1. 181.▲
   by kbrkbr 3y ago

   I wonder what the probability was back then to die by shark and per prehistoric cow.
2. 182.▲
   by kbrkbr 3y ago

   > "french are despising non native speakers, especially the Parisians" I don't judge if this is right or wrong, but I lived in south west of Germany for a while, where they teach French starting in primary school. Among th
3. 183.▲
   by kbrkbr 3y ago

   Optimism vs. Pessimism - that's not the only choice. Both fix a strategy before looking at the question. Another strategy would be to look at the question at hand and what we can predict with what uncertainty about relevant variables.
4. 184.▲
   by kbrkbr 3y ago

   You probably meant 99.99%, or 0.1%.
5. 185.▲
   by kbrkbr 3y ago

   I agree with you. "Complex reasoning" without the guardrails of empirical tests and lived implementation is very error prone. The number of variables is gigantic. In the armchair you can reduce them and tweak the remaining ones, a
6. 186.▲
   by kbrkbr 3y ago

   They should make their campaign more targeted using their own tools. "Hey, we know that you are the head of marketing of xyz, and we overheard that you are just discussing budget. We have a great idea for you..." No doubt this wil
7. 187.▲
   by kbrkbr 3y ago

   I probably don't understand clearly enough. Physics, chemistry, biology, even psychology have textbooks. Pick one, it doesn't matter much. It will teach you roughly the same basic things. Philosophy on the other hand. Pick Searle
8. 188.▲
   by kbrkbr 3y ago

   > Because what else would it be? Usually if you make a point like this, you state the definition of philosophy and show that the very thing falls under the definition. It could be reasoning, application of common sense, rhetorical play,
9. 189.▲
   by kbrkbr 3y ago

   I hope we can all agree that science works reasonably well in gathering knowledge. Because we can use it to do things. You are saying metaphysics is about the "why" of this. I agree. I disagree that there has been a way or method
10. 190.▲
    by kbrkbr 3y ago

    Do you have a reference for this claim?
11. 191.▲
    by kbrkbr 3y ago

    That seems to be an argument also for religion. Plenty of people also survived extreme hardship using their beliefs. Not saying there is anything wrong with this thesis, but I want to point out that this is not what philosophy usually think
12. 192.▲
    by kbrkbr 3y ago

    I have a genuine question that seems to fit here. It's bugging me for a long time, so any feedback is very welcome. I can see that the scientific method works well in producing knowledge. Because we can do something with it. Like fly t
13. 193.▲
    by kbrkbr 3y ago

    How is this study different from a study suggesting that taking off one's shoes before sleeping can reduce headache in the morning? There may be a hidden cause that leads to sleep reduction and dementia, no?
14. 194.▲
    by kbrkbr 3y ago

    Once there was another republic and empire. It also had a Senate, the original one. In this republic populism became also strong, there were even civil wars. Later strong army leaders removed the republic (and then reinstated it on paper).
15. 195.▲
    by kbrkbr 3y ago

    Or you use numba [1]. Then you can use a subset of plain Python. [1] https://numba.pydata.org/
16. 196.▲
    by kbrkbr 3y ago

    In my company we have moved to using EPSS (exploit probability scoring system) on top of CVE's. That filters a lot of noise. https://www.first.org/epss/
17. 197.▲
    by kbrkbr 3y ago

    The article gives only anecdata as evidence that this is happening, mostly from astrologers themselves. I would question that it is happening at all. At least I found nothing objectively convincing for the thesis that "young people are
18. 198.▲
    by kbrkbr 3y ago

    As the smallest prime number is 2 you probably meant "there being no largest prime number".
19. 199.▲
    by kbrkbr 3y ago

    > is not fully consistent Not being able to prove the consistency of a system within the system does not entail that the system is inconsistent (or not fully consistent).
20. 200.▲
    by kbrkbr 3y ago

    A proof is usually some premises together with a conclusion, such that the premises are true or accepted, and it is not possible that the premises are true while the conclusion is not - usually for formal reasons. I don't see why &quot
21. 201.▲
    by kbrkbr 3y ago

    Thank you for your thoughtful comment. You have many good points. Let me just say that Popper has been philosophically criticized to the point that some say it is a dead horse. Why are we still using this mixture of Fisherian and Neymar-Pea
22. 202.▲
    by kbrkbr 3y ago

    I can't say "been there, done that", because I know little about how you came to the position you hold. And I've had my share of burying hypotheses I've held for long times, so chances are I'm wrong. But I held
23. 203.▲
    by kbrkbr 3y ago

    I fail to see what you mean exactly. Could you explain? Specifically why the opinion is philosophical and not just some historic-pragmatic pattern matching and grouping?
24. 204.▲
    by kbrkbr 3y ago

    I hold a master in philosophy and it was my first big love. Over the years I came however to a conclusion opposite to yours. > Also, philosophy underpins science. Whenever a hypothesis is tested, there is are philosophically-grounded ass
25. 205.▲
    by kbrkbr 3y ago

    I tried it using oobabooga's webui side by side with Alpaca 65B loaded in 4 bit on the same AWS instance with 64GB of VRAM. While Alpaca produced 3 tokens/sec, Falcon produced 0.17 tokens/sec. So it is very slow with the curr
26. 206.▲
    by kbrkbr 3y ago

    You are right. I indeed thought only probabilities would matter here, when it is possibilities.
27. 207.▲
    by kbrkbr 3y ago

    - 2x30 participants - Not chosen at random - No double blinding - Plenty of leeway for influence by conductors of experiment I'm not convinced these results can be generalized into more than: some researchers could trick 60 handpicked
28. 208.▲
    by kbrkbr 3y ago

    I find it always a bit strange if somebody says that something “could have” a large impact. The only way to prove this wrong is to prove that it is logically or after all we know empirically impossible that large impact could arise. Also th
29. 209.▲
    by kbrkbr 3y ago

    My first thought was also: unfiltered marketing crap, and completely over the top. Starting with the sideswipe on Meta. Gentle reminder: Meta gives away LLaMa and Galactica under quite liberal non commercial license, OPT is even under MIT l
30. 210.▲
    by kbrkbr 3y ago

    Then this is a court order based on laws and a legal process. In no way is this comparable to how Russia treats different opinions.