wutbrodo

11 ms·

121.
by wutbrodo 4y ago
That's not my experience with NIMBY coalitions. They're usually saying things like "more supply increases prices". I know it's a bit of a baptist-and-bootleggers dynamic, between self-interested homeowners and dumb
122.
by wutbrodo 4y ago
And months that often aren't a great quality of life and are questionably in the patients' interest. It made a huge impression on me as a kid when my greataunt, a physician, decided that she didn't want to be treated for her
123.
by wutbrodo 4y ago
Probably a naive question, but why is EMR still so atrocious? I know there's a lot of garbage software out there, esp when it's single-purpose. But I usually assume that's a combination of low returns to better UI and little
124.
by wutbrodo 4y ago
Other coverage, like CNN, made it sound like the layoffs were concentrated along annotators. But your comment made me double-check the original reporting[1], which AFAICT says that the layoffs were both data evaluators and annotators. Grant
125.
by wutbrodo 4y ago
This story is from 2018...the lidar-focused portion of the AV industry has advanced lightyears since then. You may as well post an article about Eliza to make a pt about DallE. And the limited domain you're describing for Cruise is the
126.
by wutbrodo 4y ago
Because they don't have Lidar. They're just attempting to solve a completely different problem, which is much harder. IMO it's a horribly irresponsible approach
127.
by wutbrodo 4y ago
You are again moving the goalposts. We seem to disagree about how attentive one can expect a driver to be, across long periods. IMO, decades of science on driving are on my side. But resolving that disagreement isn't necessary: even if
128.
by wutbrodo 4y ago
> Supposedly the "important" people are still employed. For now I don't know if you're unaware of this or omitting it to mislead others, but everyone laid off were data labelers. This is completely consistent with a s
129.
by wutbrodo 4y ago
I assume he meant the computational cost.
130.
by wutbrodo 4y ago
> The slightest pressure of human direction takes priority over any route planning by the AI. > What you are seeing here is a human mistake, sorry. This is an enormously different claim from "deliberately allows the car to drive
131.
by wutbrodo 4y ago
> More accurately, this shows a FSD beta tester deliberately allowing his vehicle to head into oncoming traffic. It does not seem deliberate to me, from watching the video. While stopped at an intersection, the Tesla: - displays it'
132.
by wutbrodo 4y ago
> it was already recorded way before we had modern and industrial societies This doesn't falsify the claim at all. Diabetes was first recorded 3500 years ago, and none of the other diseases on the list were literally invented by in
133.
by wutbrodo 4y ago
The thread we're talking about is the former: the head of the FDA announcing policy via his Twitter account. How is it remotely relevant that other Twitter accounts are nutty? If somebody shared a clip of the President making a policy
134.
by wutbrodo 4y ago
The claim was that going from state A to state B to engage in sex would use the minimum of the two states' ages of consent. That is still false. What you are describing is the _federal_ aoc applying if interstate travel was involved. I
135.
by wutbrodo 4y ago
Could you clarify how you think this falsifies the claim in any way? State legislatures planning bad law is somehow an indication that the SC ruling was too?
136.
by wutbrodo 4y ago
What do you mean here? How would you criminalize the act of a different state's govt? Do you mean (attempt to) hold state legislators criminally liable?
137.
by wutbrodo 4y ago
I'd posit that certain lobes were already shut off if you're unable to read a thread by the then-Commissioner of the FDA because it happens to be on Twitter. It's the 2020s, agency heads make official statements on Twitter al
138.
by wutbrodo 4y ago
What on earth are you talking about... He's interpreting a thread that he is quote-tweeting. The thread is from _the then-Commissioner of the FDA_. If you think Eddie's description is wrong, you can read the thread he's descr
139.
by wutbrodo 4y ago
Diseases of civilization usually refers to things like diabetes, obesity, heart disease, cancer. I'm not 100% sure but I think the common threads are metabolic and inflammatory.
140.
by wutbrodo 4y ago
Yea, it's weird. I don't think I've actually really encountered someone smart and experienced who has thus problem. They tend to be secure enough in their own intelligence that honest consideration of their mistakes and gaps
141.
by wutbrodo 4y ago
Needs more profanity to be accurate
142.
by wutbrodo 4y ago
> Was it cultural issues for example foreign born coworker who doesn't understand how respect in the USA works in text form? No, this was a white guy born in America. I think it was just a self-esteem thing: he didn't feel wort
143.
by wutbrodo 4y ago
> People who wake up "ready to go" seem to be pretty rare. I know this is a complete tangent, but do you find this to be true specifically of habitual coffee drinkers? I have a pretty horrid history with a sleep disorder, and w
144.
by wutbrodo 4y ago
> It's a massive chore to have a teammate that causes stuff like this and I don't envy your teammates or lead (even worse if you're the lead, obviously). It gets tricky. I haven't had to deal with this friction for ma
145.
by wutbrodo 4y ago
Fwiw, I used to use respect-by-default until I encountered (multiple times) people who were too emotionally unhealthy and insecure about their abilities to handle it. I literally had someone write me an impassioned email claiming that quest
146.
by wutbrodo 4y ago
I see, I think framing it as "doing business" threw me off. Semantics aside, this distinction is meaningful.
147.
by wutbrodo 4y ago
> no, an ad hominem need not be literal What on earth do you mean by "literal" here? Ad hominem refers to a specific fallacious style of argumentation. Being ignorant of the definition and then too stubborn to admit it is not p
148.
by wutbrodo 4y ago
Could you expand on the definition of "doing business with" an entity that you're using here? It seems quite non-standard. If you open the door to a govt office, are you doing business with the company who installed the doors
149.
by wutbrodo 4y ago
None of the lines of reasoning were an ad hominem. From your other comment[1], it seems like you think "ad hominem" just means "being rude to someone". I recommend reading the GP comment's description of ad hominem
150.
by wutbrodo 4y ago
I hope you get the help that you need : (

More ›