phario

It was a bit unclear to me how stable this was to adjusting the course. Did they set up the course in a blind fashion?

With a lot of ML it boils down to how well the training set represents the situation.

…are you serious?

There would be so much data in understanding people’s light usage. For example, you could figure out how late or early people get up, number of people living in a house, how crowded the house is, how many lights are used per room, etc etc. it would be a gold mine of information.

Let’s say you’re a home automaton designer. You want to design devices to be used in the home, but in order to design such devices, you need enough of a stockpile of user data. This lightbulb data would be incredible valuable.

You can probably even analyse the data and determine things like whether someone is watching tv late at night.

From a nefarious view, how valuable would this data be to robbers and thieves?

These things are interesting for two reasons (to me).

The first is that it seems utterly unsurprising that these inconsistencies exist. These are language models. People seem to fall easily into the trap in believing them to have any kind of “programming” on logic.

The second is just how unscientific NN or ML is. This is why it’s hard to study ML as a science. The original paper referenced doesn’t really explain the issue or explain how to fix it because there’s not much you can do to explain ML(see their second paragraph in the discussion). It’s not like the derivation of a formula where you point to one component of the formula as say “this is where you go wrong”.

There was a prophetic podcast episode from the series Plain English a while back that I constantly think about.

In that episode the author describes how the internet is going through a revolution.

Basically 20 years ago, the internet was all about gaining numbers. Companies could operate at a loss if they got people signed up. Facebook, Google, YouTube, Uber, Deliveroo, etc. they were all about getting you in their mailing list or consumer list and who cares what happens then.

Now there’s an issue because that model is not profitable. In order to continue, all the internet is moving towards subscription.

In a sense, I don’t think of that as intrinsically bad. Patreon is a good example. The internet is now filled up with so much shit that people are willing to pay to filter it. So with Patreon, you pay a fee to support an artist to produce the content you want. That itself isn’t a bad idea.

Now that being said, a lot of “bad things” do emerge. The fact that you can no longer buy software like Adobe and it’s all subscription based. That’s shit. But that also inspired software alternatives like Affinity Designer.

Hmmm. If abuse happens, is the right idea to say that “I don’t need this community”?

I’m not sure how that HackerNews comment helps in the slightest. If my university has an obscure basket weaving community and people are getting abused in that community, should I just say “Eh we don’t actually need a basket weaving community”.

It’s also amusing to me that a commenter on a relatively obscure and niche website is complaining that that don’t need (or care about abuse that transpired on) a niche community from another website. And then this comment is echoed in yet another niche community.

I think people really missed my point, and thought I was somehow arguing in favour of poor working conditions.

My point was that the Lemmy response that “well why doesn’t the boss do this?” is not the right negotiation tactic.

The right negotiation tactic is, for example, to argue that it’s in the benefit of the company and society to improve working conditions. For example, you argue that by allowing remote working, you are encouraging not only a happier and more productive environment, but you are widening access and better able to recruit the top people.

There are lots of ways to argue for better conditions. The reaction of “well the boss doesn’t do it so I won’t either” is not a great tactic. If the boss does put in crazy hours, where does that leave your negotiation stance?

That’s like asking why, if you’re a programmer why you don’t just work for another company on your day off.

NBA players are professionals. They’re paid to play in the NBA season. They get plenty of tailored Xs and Os in their season and post season. They probably all need permission from their teams or stipulations on their contract that they can compete in the off season. If they get hurt, they (and their team) stand to lose millions of dollars.

For players with families and significant ones as well, they’re already away from their families for extended periods.

I’m not trying to be patronising but we do have to think of them as professionals. Not high school ballers who are grateful for any chance to touch the ball. The situation is slightly different for players who are playing for their country or for Olympic pride, etc.

I find the whole thing a strange debate. The USA Track and Field National Trials are known as some of the most competitive in the world and you might argue the competition is as competitive as an international competition. But it’s not. Nobody who wins Nationals would call themselves a World Champion.

The NBA Championship might contain the best players in the world but it is not an international competition. It is open only to American teams and to people who have work visas in America (minus one team in Canada). It’s the height of American ignorance to fall it a World Championship.

As far as I know this isn’t done in hockey. NHL players don’t call themselves World Champions.

I don’t really understand why this is controversial. It doesn’t invalidate the dominance of American basketball. It only serves to highlight how absolutely ignorant Americans are and their belief that the world centres around USA USA USA.

Let me get this right. You made up a league only open to American teams and Americans or foreigners with work visas in America. And then you call yourselves the World Champions? Does that sound weird?

I’m a bit confused who the survey sample is. 90% of gen Zers chosen according to what method?

Check out his podcast with Podcast P. I’m not sure how the book compares but you gain a lot of respect for his career.

A lot of language is subtle.

On this case, the use of the word “obviously” is a backhanded compliment. It’s like seeing someone come last in a race and say “well they obviously tried”. I

I don’t really think if this (the subtlety of language) as a bad thing. If you want to improve as a writer you have to begin dissecting words and meaning and underlying context. It’s part of emotional and social intelligence.

When taking to people, it’s not as easy as “everything is the opposite”. If that were true, then it would be easy since everything is the opposite. Learning the subtlety of language is a skill—you might argue in every way as important as learning to code or learning maths or learning how to walk.

This subtlety of language governs how you treat others, how you write letters, how you give talks, how you parent, etc.