I really enjoyed the Edward Herrman narration of the "At the Mountains of Madness" when I listened to it years ago.
What struck me is how it still feels haunting even decades later; it aged quite well. I couldn't help shake the creepy feeling there was something unearthly at the edges of our world.
I think the idea may have been that these would help with bad Indian roads — even our potholes have potholes — but the police neglected to account for having to participate in the odd car chase now and then.
On the other hand, if they're pouring money into a project that doesn't make them enough money to make it worthwhile, that does seem unsustainable. Maybe NATS should get less popular but become an option in EKS/AKS/GKE that Synadia runs.
I'm speaking more to the marketing checklist sense, IBM wants features that the others don't quite have yet. This is luxury branding imo a great degree, customers are paying a lot for a super-premium product, so they need to think they are getting 'the best'.
In terms of actual functionality, no matter how good it is, its not price-competitive.
I don't recognize it as being a Samurai descendent.
Related note: I just saw a Suzuki Sidekick on the road in L.A., in Geo Tracker trim... a rare sight nowadays. It sounded like shit, but with a robust platform a vehicle like that would be just what the U.S. market lacks: a burly SMALL sport-ute.
Great point. As per our TOS - users of the site must be over 18 and have the consent of everyone in the image (i.e. their own kids, relations etc).
I put that line about OpenAI's usage policy there for practical reasons. If someone orders something that OpenAI refuses to generate (like a photo of Bart Simpson say), then I can't include it in the printed book. With this project, if someone uploads content that's in any way inappropriate, we'll see it and refuse to fulfill the order (and take other appropriate actions, if needed)
Curtis Yarvin has a riff that goes something like this: Liberal Wikipedia, Communist Wikipedia, and Fascist Wikipedia will all actually agree on the vast majority of topics: Physics, botany, the solar system, chemistry, math, statistics etc.
However they'll be worlds apart on history, economics, anthropology, sexuality, politics, previous leaders and so on.
Our Wikipedia is the world seen through the eyes of the New York Times + Harvard. Our Wikipedia is probably correct about Physics, botany...
This is legal communication written by a lawyer and intended to be read by lawyers.
Consistently, the first thing every lawyer has said to me when preparing for any interaction with third parties that had a legal aspect was "never volunteer information you were not explicitly asked for". Of course lawyers would practice this among themselves. The law requires him to suspect something wrong to investigate, so he states "I hereby formally suspect something wrong". If the investigation leads to a court filing, the law would then require him to submit evidence, so he will strategically decide which evidence to submit and submit it. Why would he commit in advance to what evidence he believes relevant if not required by law?
But also, if reading the letter as if written in good faith - which I find hard to do - those are all true reasons to suspect something wrong (it is common knowledge and well established that Wikipedia is a very influential source of knowledge, and that there are attempts at foreign influence), and great questions to ask to investigate whether the Foundation is making a reasonable effort to fight it if you were a regulator or auditor or other investigator, all of which have great answers already written up that prove the foundation is doing a very good job at establishing and maintaining processes to ensure the neutrality of its articles. In my headcanon, Wikipedia's lawyer responds simply with a list of URLs.
Not a truck guy, but I like it. What I like the most is that it's not batshit fucking insane.
I recently visited America after a couple of years away, and spent a couple of weeks in California, driving from SF to LA. The thing which I found the most striking was the sheer insanity of the pickup trucks that were absolutely everywhere. These things were true Idiocracy-class monster trucks, which are clearly lethal to operate in any environment which includes pedestrians. In some cases, my five-year-old's head barely reached the bumper, and my wife's head didn't clear the hood. And these were highly-polished, un-dented behemoths that had clearly never seen a dirt road in their lives. The whole thing is clearly all about aesthetics and identity politics. Absolutely revolting.
(If you haven't visited the US recently, I think it's almost impossible to appreciate how obscene the phenomena is. 10 years ago, trucks were far more restrained, but could still do everything they needed to do. 30 years ago, trucks were fully half the size, but could still carry the same-size loads and do honest work. There's honestly no possible justification for their corpulent growth.)
Anyhow, this thing looks like it can do honest work without killing everyone who crosses its path. I really appreciate that. I hope it starts a trend.
A bit off-topic, but one gripe I had with some implementations of subtitles is when they’re delivering on the identity of a person before this was exposed. I don’t know why this happens that it would reveal <Name: Dialog> where it should instead be <Generic trait: Dialog>.
So instead of <Phil: Blah blah> it would be <Raspy voice: Blah blah>.
I don’t have examples for this, but it happens regularly that I noticed it as a trend. Might be because subtitles are outsourced and maybe the importance of exposition is not clear to the people creating the subtitles?
Now that's an interesting trend. It's no longer feasible to have an independent web site, because nobody will visit it because you don't have the page rank. Journalists that do find your site copy your data and may add a link (that noone vists). Their pagerank is much higher, so they get all search engine links and all the ads, for your content.
The so called Planck units are the worst system of units conceivable and they could never be used in practice.
When Planck has suggested that system of units, as a possible improvement over the system of natural units proposed by Maxwell a quarter of century before him, by removing 2 somewhat arbitrary choices required by the Maxwell system of units (of 2 kinds of atoms, one for providing a frequency unit and one for providing a mass unit), that was before the development of quantum mechanics and before of the discovery of several quantum effects that are useful in metrology.
The reason why the Planck units is bad is because it defines the Newtonian constant of gravitation as an exact constant.
However, the Newtonian constant of gravitation can be measured only with an extreme uncertainty, many, many orders of magnitude greater than the uncertainty for measuring any other fundamental physical quantity.
By forcing the Newtonian constant of gravitation to be exact, its uncertainty does not disappear. That uncertainty just moves into the values of all other physical quantities that include mass in their dimensional formulae.
This means that in Planck's system of units most absolute values of physical quantities have uncertainties far too great to be usable. In Planck's system of units, for most quantities only the ratio between 2 quantities can be accurate, not also their absolute values.
Nevertheless, not all is bad in Planck's system of units. Only using the Newtonian constant of gravity is bad. Using the Planck constant to provide a unit of mass instead of using the mass of some arbitrary atom is good.
By combining Maxwell's system of units with the good part of Planck's system of units, you can obtain a system of natural units where there is only one arbitrary choice, of an atomic transition that can provide a unit of frequency. All the other "fundamental constants" can be defined as 1, with the exception of 2 constants that must be measured experimentally, and which provide the intensity of the gravitational interaction, i.e. the Newtonian constant of gravitation, and the intensity of the electromagnetic interaction, i.e. the so-called constant of the fine structure, a.k.a. Sommerfeld constant.
After its last revision, the International System of Units has actually become equivalent with such a Maxwell-Planck system of natural units, except that this is masked for historical reasons by the use of a large number of "fundamental constants" that are inserted into the relationships between physical quantities, and which are exact, but instead of being equal to 1 they have various weird values.
I remember in the '70s in central California many farmers did a similar thing, except with propane instead of electricity. They already had large propane tanks and regular propane delivery because they used propane for heating and cooking, so converting a truck to run on propane brought the same kind of convenience that an EV brings today.
Correction: those that don't enter a polling station and register attendance. What you do in there is up to you. You can cast a vote, spoil the ballot, cast a "donkey vote" (numbering the options in the order printed), leave the ballot empty, or just turn around without doing anything at all.
Definitely a good question. Using an actual LLM as the execution layer allows us to more easily swap to the planner agent in the case that the test needs to be adapted. We don’t want to store just a selector based test because it’s difficult to determine when it requires adaptation, and is inherently more brittle to subtle UI changes. We think using a tiny model like Moondream makes this cheap enough that these benefits outweigh an approach where we cache actual playwright code.
