tripletao

14 ms·

61.
by tripletao 1y ago
Executive Order 13769 (the so-called "Muslim Ban") actually was effective immediately, resulting in a similar race to the airport during its chaotic implementation. Hundreds of people with previously lawful immigration status were
62.
by tripletao 1y ago
In other guidance, "construction" is specifically excluded from the permission to "install equipment". That's not a very clear distinction, especially for large industrial machines, though I do see their general int
63.
by tripletao 1y ago
The press coverage has mostly focused on the pointless show of physical force, the shackles and the prison-like detention. That should be criticized, but it sometimes feels like a tacit acknowledgement that all the workers were unlawfully p
64.
by tripletao 1y ago
> and in rare cases denied entry. I think getting taken away in chains and imprisoned is significantly worse than getting denied entry? I understand you're not saying the raid was conducted properly, but you're consistently dow
65.
by tripletao 1y ago
> But I wouldn't at all be surprised if some no-name subcontractor decided to play fast and loose with the visa rules to win a contract with a low bid. I feel like "subcontractor" here could mean "staffing agency used
66.
by tripletao 1y ago
> and maybe some light training/setup/integration. What do you mean by "maybe" or "light"? That's an explicitly permitted activity: > A B-1 visa may be granted to specialized workers going to the Uni
67.
by tripletao 1y ago
> If PRNG sequence is reused to generate more shuffles, then the next shuffle can be predicted from the previous one. That's theoretically true by a counting argument, but for a CSPRNG the only way to compute that next shuffle costs
68.
by tripletao 1y ago
What makes you confident they were acting illegally? Here's a US embassy: > A B-1 visa may be granted to specialized workers going to the United States to install, service, or repair commercial or industrial equipment or machinery p
69.
by tripletao 1y ago
You weren't necessarily acting unlawfully, and neither were the Koreans. From reports, they seemed to mostly have an ESTA or B-1 visa. This doesn't allow "work", but it does allow many business activities. For example: &
70.
by tripletao 1y ago
"Mostly right" is the most insidious option, because the frequent true statements or implications will lull you into believing the infrequent false ones. For Fisher-Yates, if the RNG is good then the output permutation is independ
71.
by tripletao 1y ago
I believe you're correct. When foreign experts visit temporarily to transfer technology to a new site, there's no bright line between the "non-working" business activities permitted by a B visa or ESTA and those requirin
72.
by tripletao 1y ago
> Do note that peak spending on rail roads eventually amounted to ~20 percent of the US GDP in the 19th century. Has anyone found the source for that 20%? Here's a paper I found: > Between 1848 and 1854, railroad investment, in t
73.
by tripletao 1y ago
> The graphic has four studies that show increased inequality Three, since Toner-Rodgers 2024 currently seems to be a total fabrication. https://archive.is/Ql1lQ
74.
by tripletao 1y ago
The LLM generated four caps on the LDO output. They're all placed next to each other and away from the LDO, but that seems to have been a human choice. So I can't fault the LLM there. That said, the AMS1117 datasheet shows a tanta
75.
by tripletao 1y ago
The video seems more clear. The LLM generated the BOM and netlist using atopile, a tool for specifying the equivalent of a schematic in code. He did the placement and routing in KiCad in the usual way, presumably by hand. ETA: Other comment
76.
by tripletao 1y ago
They show a 95% CI excluding zero in Figure 1. By the usual standards of social science, that's not a null finding. They give their methodology in Appendix D. For intuition on why it's insufficient to consider N alone, I assume e.
77.
by tripletao 1y ago
> You don't intend to immediately nuke your geopolitical rivals I don't see why intent requires immediacy? Perhaps this becomes uselessly philosophical, but I would say MAD requires the defending state to intend to nuke its adv
78.
by tripletao 1y ago
A small team of skilled physicists relying only on public knowledge can design a nuclear weapon (and did, back in 1964; their work product was classified, the demonstrated futility notwithstanding). The only reason that random grad students
79.
by tripletao 1y ago
> they were not working actively towards a bomb I think this becomes a definitions game again. I'd consider a country to be "working actively towards a bomb" when it's taking costly steps that provide no commensurate
80.
by tripletao 1y ago
Leaving aside the accuracy of this claim, "building a weapon" here means "taking the uranium they've already enriched almost to weapons-grade, and completing final assembly into a working device". The nuclear physic
81.
by tripletao 1y ago
> Unless your classifier is not independent from the base rate - that is, a classifier that gets more lenient if there's more fraud in the group. If I understand correctly, that was the purpose of their "reweighting". To r
82.
by tripletao 1y ago
I'm making a mathematical statement, not a moral one. I chose "nationality" as my input because the linked article focused on that, but the statement applies equally to any other input. As already noted, any classifier better
83.
by tripletao 1y ago
The linked article already notes that model accuracy degraded after their reweighting, ultimately contributing to their abandonment of the project. (For completeness, they could also have considered nationality in the opposite direction, im
84.
by tripletao 1y ago
They correctly note the existence of a tradeoff, but I don't find their statement of it very clear. Ideally, a model would be fair in the senses that: 1. In aggregate over any nationality, people face the same probability of a false po
85.
by tripletao 2y ago
I feel like a cash reward would help not only with motivation in the obvious way, but also by giving people social permission to act weird, since the human on the other side will understand that you're doing it to help both of you win
86.
by tripletao 2y ago
If your standard for how hard the interrogator should try isn't "as hard as they can", then what do you propose instead? It's always possible to fool a sufficiently lazy human, so you need something. > It sounds like
87.
by tripletao 2y ago
Of course; that's the point of an adversarial test, to free the interrogators to use all their human intelligence to place the goalposts wherever they judge best. There will always be individual humans who'd fail any sane version
88.
by tripletao 2y ago
This appears to be the same two authors who reported that "People cannot distinguish GPT-4 from a human in a Turing test" back in May 2024: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2405.08007 That earlier result was because the
89.
by tripletao 2y ago
> now that an LLM can pass the Turing test What study are you referring to here? The ones I've seen don't particularly resemble anything Turing described. The preprint from UCSD got heavy coverage in the popular press but its h
90.
by tripletao 2y ago
The comment you replied to said "income-restricted", so they probably mean a building covered by government programs that give preferential tax, planning, or other treatment to developers who commit to below-market rent, with tena

More ›