Excrubulent

I appreciate the thoughtful comments. I'd encourage you to watch to the end, there are definitely counterpoints.:

• The hoverpack is a late-game thing, and as I clarify in the follow up to this video, this is really to help people overcome the complexity hurdle of the early game, which is a big problem. The devs said only 0.2% of people beat the last phase of the game prior to 1.0. A lot of people are attacking this technique from the point of view of being very experienced players that have all the tools, but if you're that far in the game, this may not be for you.
• I like my spaghetti factory, it emphasizes the complex industrial look of this game, which I don't like to hide. This technique allowed me to make it far more complex than I ever would've managed without this technique. You can always encapsulate after you adopt this technique, and I absolutely have in certain places. Again, in the follow up to this video I cover encapsulation right at the start, although I don't use that word for it.
• You can wave a deconstructor at the belt and see what's on it.

This is not intended to be an all-encompassing method, just a rule of thumb that makes the task of hand-building the early factory much easier, which you can then scale and extend into the late game if you wish. Plenty of people are talking about logistics floors, but I don't use them because they obfuscate even more than a ceiling belt. If your problem is that you can't see what's on the belt well... you can't see through floors either. You can through glass floors, but then you're bringing back the visual noise anyway, and I've always found tracking belts through even glass floors to be much more work than following a belt to the ceiling.

Again, I'd encourage you to finish the video and also check the follow-up, where I roll this method into stackable blueprints, and I explain that these blueprints can easily be incorporated into logistics floors if that's your thing.

I also have a note in that video apologising for calling people babies :)

If the judge said it then it would have been established fact in the case. This can be established by evidence and found as fact in the case, or it can be part of the agreed facts of the case, in which case the court doesn't waste time hearing evidence. All it takes to become agreed fact is for the defence to present it as part of their case and for the prosecution to not dispute it.

In that context the finding of fact by the court is more than enough for the paper to report on it, and the two versions presented by you of it being said by the defence and by the judge, are entirely compatible with one another. Nobody is going to demand to see the boy's medical history to verify an uncontroversial point like this. That would just be a waste of time.

The papers presented it as stated by the defence and the judge, they said nothing false or misleading, and I don't see any problem with that part of their reporting.

Now, if you have an issue that it was reported because it casts autistic people in a bad light, the issue becomes whether you think it's something the papers should leave out. Well, the defence considered it important, and it became news. Not much we can do about that after the fact.

People have been trying to boycott time since we had a word for it. If you figure out how you let me know please.

I have a kinect, I have to try this.

Almost like it does work on Firefox but for some reason they don't want you using it. Honestly it's so damn weird, why do that? Is there some incentive for them?

She has shown small improvements, but it's excruciatingly slow.

My apologies, I see that I have made a mistake. There are in fact 3 w's in the sentence "Howard likes strawberries."

It's an illusion. People think that because the language model puts words into sequences like we do, there must be something there. But we know for a fact that it is just word associations. It is fundamentally just predicting the most likely next word and generating it.

If it helps, we have something akin to an LLM inside our brain, and it does the same limited task. Our brains have distinct centres that do all sorts of recognition and generative tasks, including images, sounds and languge. We've made neural networks that do these tasks too, but the difference is that we have a unifying structure that we call "consciousness" that is able to grasp context, and is able to loopback the different centres into one another to achieve all sorts of varied results.

So we get our internal LLM to sequence words, one word after another, then we loop back those words via the language recognition centre into the context engine, so it can check if the words match the message it intended to create, it checks them against its internal model of the world. If there's a mismatch, it might ask for different words till it sees the message it wanted to see. This can all be done very fast, and we're barely aware of it. Or, if it's feeling lazy today, it might just blurt out the first sentence that sprang to mind and it won't make sense, and we might call that a brain fart.

Back in the 80s "automatic writing" took off, which was essentially people tapping into this internal LLM and just letting the words flow out without editing. It was nonesense, but it had this uncanny resemblance to human language, and people thought they were contacting ghosts, because obviously there has to be something there, right? But it's not, it's just that it sounds like people.

These LLMs only produce text forwards, they have no ability to create a sentence, then examine that sentence and see if it matches some internal model of the world. They have no capacity for context. That's why any question involving A inside B trips them up, because that is fundamentally a question about context. "How many Ws in the sentence "Howard likes strawberries" is a question about context, that's why they screw it up.

I don't think you solve that without creating a real intelligence, because a context engine would necessarily be able to expand its own context arbitrarily. I think allowing an LLM to read its own words back and do some sort of check for fidelity might be one way to bootstrap a context engine into existence, because that check would require it to begin to build an internal model of the world. I suspect the processing power and insights required for that are beyond us for now.

I'd be happy to help! There are 3 "w"s in the string "Howard likes strawberries".

I don't even know if that would be legal, but that doesn't matter. The fee creates a little bit of disconnection so both parties can assume that questions of legality are the others' responsibility.

This doesn't make it legal either, it just makes it more likely to happen, and slightly harder to prosecute.

Ooohhh I started that season but didn't finish it. Thanks!

I think they've dropped the College Humor name, now they're Dropout.

Which season is that? Is it Fantasy High Senior Year?