You seem to misunderstand how the penalties work out. 95% of the time after a fight happens, both teams get offsetting penalties, and so neither team is at a disadvantage because of the fight alone. There are instances where one team ends up with more penalties after a fight, but it's usually because of something that happened before the fight and prompted the fight (and should've been a penalty anyway)
decerian
joined 1 year ago
But intelligence is the capacity to solve problems. If you can solve problems quickly, you are by definition intelligent
To solve any problems? Because when I run a computer simulation from a random initial state, that's technically the computer solving a problem it's never seen before, and it is trillions of times faster than me. Does that mean the computer is trillions of times more intelligent than me?
the ability to apply knowledge to manipulate one's environment or to think abstractly as measured by objective criteria (such as tests)
If we built a true super-genius AI but never let it leave a small container, is it not intelligent because WE never let it manipulate its environment? And regarding the tests in the Merriam Webster definition, I suspect it's talking about "IQ tests", which in practice are known to be at least partially not objective. Just as an example, it's known that you can study for and improve your score on an IQ test. How does studying for a test increase your "ability to apply knowledge"? I can think of some potential pathways, but we're basically back to it not being clearly defined.
In essence, what I'm trying to say is that even though we can write down some definition for "intelligence", it's still not a concept that even humans have a fantastic understanding of, even for other humans. When we try to think of types of non-human intelligence, our current models for intelligence fall apart even more. Not that I think current LLMs are actually "intelligent" by however you would define the term.
If you're mixing things up in the kitchen, typically you try to be somewhat precise with ratios.
The difference in this case being that because the actual ratio of the blend is unknown, you don't actually know how it would crystallize. Technically they could even change up the ratio week to week based on the price of high-fructose corn syrup so you wouldn't even get consistency from it.
If this actually did lead to faster matrix multiplication, then essentially anything that can be done on a GPU would benefit. That definitely could include games, and physics models, along with a bunch of other applications (and yes, also AI stuff).
I'm sure the papers authors know all of that, but somehow along the line the article just became"faster and better AI"
But then what's to stop one bad owner from just making 15 different accounts for their 15 different properties?
And from the users perspective, there's reasons to prefer that all the properties under the same owner are tied to the same account. If bad reviews are happening it's easier to see the pattern if all the properties on the account have bad reviews.
Not that I don't generally agree with you, I just think that it's a complicated enough issue that just limiting the number of listings per person won't totally solve.
The above post is referencing/quoting a line from the show "It's always sunny in Philadelphia", which is why people up voting it
Believe it or not, but companies outside of Boeing and Airbus are capable of designing airplanes.
It's not just "good" regulation holding them back either - in 2017 Boeing accused Bombardier of "dumping" some CSeries planes because they sold them to Delta at below the retail cost (about a 30% discount). The CSeries was/is a good plane, but took an incredibly long time to get through certification so Bombardier had been losing money and was desperate to sell them. Boeing complained about this discount to the US International Trade Commission who imposed a massive fine on Bombardier. Because of the delays, Bombardier couldn't afford to fight the fine so they ended up having to give up a 50% stake in the design to Airbus for only $1. The year after, the fines were appealed and overturned, but the damage was already done. Bombardier has since completely sold their stake in the CSeries (one less competitor), and Airbus gets the renamed A220 series for a massive discount.
As an aside, I can't argue that the FAA doesn't do more good than harm in this space generally, but I'm the last ~5 years it's becoming clear to me that they have a massive blindspot for Boeing in particular.
Battery performance tends to drop off extremely quickly once it drops below a certain temperature. Like, one minute it still says 50% charge left, the next it's dying.
If you aren't used to dealing with amount of cold I could see it catching you by surprise on your commute or something.
On top of that, IIRC the student loan aid was executive action alone (i.e. Biden specifically enacted it) while the pandemic checks were passed by congress so at best Trump might be able to say he pushed for it but it was still congress that made it happen.
Why is that weirder? The people writing scientific software are, by and large, less good at writing software than people who only specialize in software development. I'd expect there to tons of terrible engineering practices in an old code base like that
I agree with many of the other commenters that OP debating their husband might not be the best idea.
But if that's what they want, "Decoding the gurus" did at least one Rogan specific episode, and I think they do a better job covering and dismantling Rogan's rhetorical approach than the podcasts above.
As the other user commented, instigator is hardly ever actually used.
NHL reffing is... not great most of the time. Despite being a fan of the sport, I would like to see changes that would reduce the future rates of TBI among players. Refs actually enforcing the rules would probably help a bit there.