barsoap

𝕯𝖆𝖘 𝖜𝖆̈𝖗𝖊 𝖐𝖊𝖎𝖓 𝕻𝖗𝖔𝖇𝖑𝖊𝖒 𝖜𝖊𝖓𝖓 𝖎𝖍𝖗 𝖉𝖎𝖊 𝕽𝖚𝖍𝖊𝖟𝖊𝖎𝖙𝖊𝖓 𝖊𝖎𝖓𝖍𝖆𝖑𝖙𝖊𝖓 𝖜𝖚̈𝖗𝖉𝖊𝖙 𝖎𝖍𝖗 𝕾𝖈𝖍𝖑𝖚̈𝖒𝖕𝖋𝖊

Honestly you’re more likely tripping over your shoelace

Ladders. Ladders are the #1 killer. And stupid shit on top of that, like taking something down from a high shelf.

When the dynamic you're alluding to is done right you have the (typically, not always) woman wanting to be chased as much as the man is chasing. It's the rider saying "oooh, rollercoaster, you're so intimidating and scary, toss me around" while the rollercoaster is saying "ooooh, you like curves and airtime don't you I'll hold you fast and secure".

dismiss at your own peril.

Oooo I'm scared. Just as much as I was scared of missing out on crypto or the last 10000 hype trains VCs rode into bankruptcy. I'm both too old and too much of an engineer for that BS especially when the answer to a technical argument, a fucking information-theoretical one on top of that, is "Dude, but consider FOMO".

That said, I still wish you all the best in your scientific career in applied statistics. Stuff can be interesting and useful aside from AI BS. If OTOH you're in that career path because AI BS and not a love for the maths... let's just say that vacation doesn't help against burnout. Switch tracks, instead, don't do what you want but what you can.

Or do dive into AGI. But then actually read the paper, and understand why current approaches are nowhere near sufficient. We're not talking about changes in architecture, we're about architectures that change as a function of training and inference, that learn how to learn. Say goodbye to the VC cesspit, get tenure aka a day job, maybe in 50 years there's going to be another sigmoid and you'll have written one of the papers leading up to it because you actually addressed the fucking core problem.

But that isn’t to say human intelligence can’t be surpassed by something distinctly inhuman.

Tell me you haven't read the paper without telling me you haven't read the paper. The paper is about T2 vs. T3 systems, humans are just an example.

Most turbo buttons never worked for that purpose, though, they were still way too fast Like, even ignoring other advances such as better IPC (or rather CPI back in those days) you don't get to an 8MHz 8086 by halving the clock speed of a 50MHz 486. You get to 25MHz. And practically all games past that 8086 stuff was written with proper timing code because devs knew perfectly well that they're writing for more than one CPU. Also there's software to do the same job but more precisely and flexibly.

It probably worked fine for the original PC-AT or something when running PC-XT programs (how would I know our first family box was a 386) but after that it was pointless. Then it hung on for years, then it vanished.

And my point isn’t about where we’re at, it’s about how far the same tech progressed on another domain adjacent task in three years.

First off, are you extrapolating the middle part of the sigmoid thinking it's an exponential. Secondly, https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s11633-017-1093-8.pdf

He argued for segregation to remain the law of the land when Brown V BoE occurred, but for ‘separate but equal’ to be actually enforced.

I'm very sure I said nothing about any of that and I'm pretty sure I don't agree with that take. Even if it actually was viable, as in politically possible to have equality while segregation continues, it sounds like ripping of a bandage slowly, very slowly.

most violence against women is committed against men.

I'll leave that one for you and Freud to figure out.

...one question, though: When you say "violence", do you mean psychological, physical, or both?

Is this article about a newborn being killed?

No. The illustrative example was about newborn getting killed. Try to understand the point OP is making SMH.

Nuclear energy is more expensive than renewable so not really, no. Having a good combination of starting materials to minimise the amount of energy you need to fuse everything together, or even starting out with something heavier, would be the way to go.

For more details ask a nuclear physicist of which I'm not one. Honestly there doesn't seem to be much work on it.

We've known how to turn lead into gold for ages, you just add a couple of protons, neutrons, and electrons. Long story short: Uses a fuckton of energy, not worth it.

Fun fact: When Ernest Rutherford and colleagues put together the first paper about their findings they avoided the word "transmutation" like the plague. It has been considered impossible since before alchemy became chemistry and even though he was publishing in physics chemists would probably still have had his head.