unfortunately, “4-20” has much more of a ring than “20-of-4”

also it starts a turf war when you challenge the American date format

I’ve got a problem with articles like this: “The guy who got it right once is betting a second time he’s going to get it right”. and then the article continues: “Even though he’s got it wrong a bunch of times since, he got it right that one time… So this has gotta be his second time!!”

Double tap for “I see everything with Jason Statham just on principle”

there’s a very important video on the measurement rules in the UK, if you haven’t seen it: https://www.instagram.com/reel/DNh9z3IzG8t/

eh, we’ve got pubs and chips.

oh also went back to the States last week and was appalled that a pint can cost upwards of $10 when a decade ago it was only $6 (London prices have stayed around £6-7). throw on the whole tip racketeering insanity and I’d much rather be in England.

You know why they “tombstone”? (By the way, they don’t replace with a tombstone marker but instead add the marker.)

Because if you “accidentally” deleted something and then decided you wanted it back, you’d get really mad if they couldn’t do that. If they immediately deleted it, you couldn’t ever get it back

The copies and deep copies are for a similar reason: Some engineer accidentally deletes a bunch of data, it’s really nice to have a backup so you don’t lose everything.

There’s a pretty trivial rule for getting this right. Phrase your sentence using who/whom as a question. Respond with he/him. If your response contains a “he”, your initial statement should be “who”; if it contains a “him” then you’re looking at a “whom” use.

• ex: “To who/whom should the gold be given?” -> “To him” -> “whom”
• ex: “Who/whom wants the gold?” -> “He wants the gold” -> “who”
• ex: “Who/whom did you see at the party?” -> “I saw him” -> “whom”
• ex: “The man who/whom called earlier is here” -> “Who/whom called?” -> “he called” -> “who”

I don’t understand why you’re getting down-voted. Living abroad and have stopped listening to news since the Trump election. Every 6 months I tune in, and while it seems a lot has happened, no progress has actually been made

this seems cool, but… so what? cute photo op and a tale for the grandkids…

Reminds me of a thread I saw here a while ago on “What if advertising were illegal?”

I’ve found the best method for reducing my need on Amazon is to just buy less crap. Online shopping is simple because you can get stuff immediately, but I don’t think anybody “needs” 3-4 new products per week.

Aside from that, I try and support local: find local shops that sell items similar to my style, or trust word of mouth for online retailers that are good. At the end of the day, as long as you’re buying good-quality stuff (which oddly seems to spend less on advertisements) it doesn’t really matter where exactly you buy from, as it’s all pretty similar in price / quality.

Is it delivered via Amazon or just in Amazonian packaging? I guess I don’t mind either as much, since I can’t expect a small seller to keep two separate streamlined processes…

This has also saved me on more than one occasion as I’ve tried to find the same “brand” of something I was going to buy on another site, only to find it was actually an Amazon product they were trying to push. Dodged that bullet for sure

Love me some rat cereal

But like… deleting the data would lessen the sale price. Much easier to just delete your account and keep the data in an “anonymous” form. How are you (as the consumer) going to ever know if it’s actually deleted?

I agree with @[email protected] – Tesla did some amazing things, and really paved the way for electric vehicles (especially vehicle charging infrastructure). But they went too fast and quality went down and they’re trying to make up for it by Magats buying to support Trump.

the media will be all over it

Tesla is already the most deadly car brand, but why aren’t the media already “all over it”? What makes you think it will be any different with autopilot? https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/tesla-highest-rate-deadly-accidents-study-1235176092/

What’s an “active user”? Can I just up vote things I like, do I need to leave comments like this, or must I get involved in senseless flame-wars?

next up: “Great thanks we’re gonna sell all your photos unless you pay for a subscription. Gotta keep in business somehow!”

This is really great journalism. Someone needs to edit his Wikipedia page and point to this as evidence. Then we can start citing the Wikipedia page to make up discover more of these stories

oh. go get a therapist–not physical; mental. they’re insanely expensive, but you can spend the next three months shopping around and by the new year you’ll have found someone you like!

invite me and I’ll bring my own alcohol. spread looks delicious!

Another great example (from DeepMind) is AlphaFold. Because there’s relatively little amounts of data on protein structures (only 175k in the PDB), you can’t really build a model that requires millions or billions of structures. Coupled with the fact that getting the structure of a new protein in the lab is really hard, and that most proteins are highly synonymous (you share about 60% of your genes with a banana).

So the researchers generated a bunch of “plausible yet never seen in nature” protein structures (that their model thought were high quality) and used them for training.

Granted, even though AlphaFold has made incredible progress, it still hasn’t been able to show any biological breakthroughs (e.g. 80% accuracy is much better than the 60% accuracy we were at 10 years ago, but still not nearly where we really need to be).

Image models, on the other hand, are quite sophisticated, and many of them can “beat” humans or look “more natural” than an actual photograph. Trying to eek the final 0.01% out of a 99.9% accurate model is when the model collapse happens–the model starts to learn from the “nearly accurate to the human eye but containing unseen flaws” images.