Honestly this doesn't look better. You still have a large touch screen, but now you also have > 20 buttons on the steering wheel. Capacitive (no touch feedback) ones at that.
The big problem with farming spiders for silk is that you can’t have a dense colony of them. This could a solution to that. Breeding these to make super strong silk to harvest would be really cool. Although you have to have a way of separating the strands to make thread.
I've come to a similar conclusion. One example is how much easier it is to put an interface on top of sqlite. I've been burned badly with the hidden details of ORM s. ORMs are the sirens call of getting rid of all that boiler plate code when encoding and decoding objects into a db. However this abstraction breaks in many hidden ways. Lazy loading details, in-memory state vs db mismatch, cascading details, etc all have unexpected problems that can be hard to predict. Using an LLM to do the grunt work lets you easily see and reason about all the details. You don't have to guess about what's happening and you can make your own choices.
So many disclaimers about bias. I wonder how far back you have to go before the bias isn’t an issue. Not because it unbiased, but because we don’t recognize or care about the biases present.
I don't think there is such a time. As long as writing has existed it has privileged the viewpoints of those who could write, which was a very small percentage of the population for most of history. But if we want to know what life was like 1500 years ago, we probably want to know about what everyone's lives were like, not just the literate. That availability bias is always going to be an issue for any time period where not everyone was literate - which is still true today, albeit many fewer people.
That was not the question. The question is when do you stop caring about the bias?
Some people are still outraged about the Bible, even though the writers of it has been dead for thousands of years. So the modern mass produced man and woman probably does not have a cut-off date where they look at something as history instead of examining if it is for or against her current ideology.
Depends on the specific issue, but race would be an interesting one. For most of recorded history people had a much different view of the “other”, more xenophobic than racist.
There is a modern trope of a certain political group that bias is a modern invention of another political group - an attempt to politicize anti-bias.
Preventing bias is fundamental to scientific research and law, for example. That same political group is strongly anti-science and anti-rule-of-law, maybe for the same reason.
Style over substance seems to be the order of the day.
It would be refreshing to see people debate of substantive issues, ones that make a difference. It's a symptom of the broader crises in competence. Our leaders are chosen because they aren't good at anything, so we can only argue about their spelling and word choice.
Come to think of it, why is this in HN and why am I commenting on it? The outrage trap gets me when I let my guard down. It's even come for me here on HN.
Will Sony, Microsoft, Nintendo, Valve and another software store have to allow mini stores on their platforms? That's to say software with its own payment system, inside of a free app?
Q: How much does it cost to develop on Nintendo platforms?
A: Registering for the portal and downloading the tools is completely free.
Also, if you plan to release a digital only title, you can use the IARC system to retrieve the age rating for no fee, which will allow you to publish in all the participating countries.
All that is left is the cost of acquiring development hardware: you will find more information on this inside the portal.
Development hardware isn't cheap, but it's also not out-of-sight expensive either. There's a very good reason why you see so many indie games this past generation on Switch.
Fair. I should have simply said "Nintendo doesn't approve and send out dev kits to anyone that signs up". But even that is perhaps outdated info from the pre-switch days.
Heck, pre-COVID, you needed a business address to even receive a kit. Things changed quickly at the turn of the decade.
And go where? Seriously I don’t know of another country that isn’t on the same authoritarian track, if not further along. If anyone has done a serious study and come up with a country that still has strong judicial independence, due process, lack of censorship and respect for private property, Id love to know
I split my time between a Midwest state and Spain. My children and family are safer when in Spain, imho. Ymmv, n=1. It is more humane to the human, and the health insurance for a family of four is ~$2k/year. There is no perfect, just good enough. I do not worry about gun violence there, I do not worry about them going without healthcare, I do not worry about their human rights being impaired, I don't worry about them as pedestrians getting harmed by careless drivers driving unnecessarily large personal vehicles on urban infrastructure hostile in pedestrians (Houston is actively removing a roundabout because their drivers are too incompetent to use it, for example). This is my success criteria, yours may be different.
> Seriously I don’t know of another country that isn’t on the same authoritarian track,
New Zealand? Canada? Japan? France? I mean you really aren't trying there.
> if not further along.
The only places further along are China, Russia, Georgia, Venezuela, and Hungary. Even Slovakia or Poland or Germany aren't as bad (though still troubling). It's really hard to be more authoritarian than the US is now still. The Feds claiming they'll keep going at Comey yet again really seals the deal there .
Not saying it's worth it for you, but there are lots of places.
The Comey case is interesting. I can certainly see it as "the US is trying to be authoritarian" (or at least the current administration is).
But the courts ruled in Comey's favor. There is no reason to think that, if the feds try again, the courts won't rule for Comey again. That's still "rule of law", no matter how hard the current administration is trying to make it otherwise.
Now, sure, in an ideal world the case should never have been filed. In a just world, he would not have been put through that. And in an even-somewhat-ideal world, the case would not be re-filed. Absolutely. But for all that, the situation in the US is not (yet) as dire as you are painting it.
The administration can just keep coming at him as long as they're in power, and that is itself effectively a punishment. If each case takes just 90 days to play out, they can bring four or so of those per year, on the taxpayer dime (while themselves getting paid, by us, to do it, in fact!) and waste tons of Comey's money and time, while also stressing him out.
The safeguard against this is supposed to be that Congress would eventually put a stop to it, or that the people wouldn't vote someone in who'd abuse the power of the executive branch to extrajudicially punish opponents. Neither of those safeguards have worked. Courts can tell them to stop but they have to keep telling them with each case, after everyone goes through all the motions (so to speak).
Well, the first case got squished pretty quickly (at the first motion, I believe), and it got squished in a way that damaged the ability of one of Trump's people to do her job.
And there's a statute of limitations here. It has already elapsed, in fact, though the administration is trying to argue that they way they're doing it allows for an exception. If that doesn't fly, then it's just over.
Also, with the sole exception of Hungary, no place in Europe is remotely on the same authoritarian track as the US. And the democratic systems and institutions are much more robust, too. More consensus, less first-pass-the-post bullshit.
Category error. You want 100% accuracy for an impossible problem. This is a famously unsolved conjecture. The only way to get the answer is to fully calculate it. The task was to make a guess and see how well it could do. 99.7 is surprisingly good. If the task was to calculate, the llm could write a python program, just like I would have if asked to calculate the answer.
There is a massive difference between an 'unsolved problem' and a problem solved 'the wrong way'. Yes, 99.7% is surprisingly good. But it did not detect the errors in its own output. And it should have.
Besides, we're all stuck on the 99.7% as if that's the across the board output, but that's a cherry picked result:
"The best models (bases 24, 16 and 32) achieve a near-perfect accuracy of 99.7%, while odd-base models
struggle to get past 80%."
I do think it is a very interesting thing to do with a model and it is impressive that it works at all.
The problem here is deterministic. *It must be for accuracy to even be measured*.
The model isn't trying to solve the Collatz conjecture, it is learning a pretty basic algorithm and then doing this a number of times. The instructions it needs to learn is
if x % 2:
x /= 2
else:
x = x*3 + 1
It also needs to learn to put that in a loop and for that to be a variable, but the algorithm is static.
On the other hand, the Collatz conjecture states that for C(x) (the above algorithm) has a fixed point of 1 for all x (where x \in Z+). Meaning that eventually any input will collapse to the loop 1 -> 4 -> 2 -> 1 (or just terminate at 1). You can probably see we know this is true for at least an infinite set of integers...
Edit: I should note that there is a slight modification to this, though model could get away with learning just this. Their variation limits to odd numbers and not all of them. For example 9 can't be represented by (2^k)m - 1 (but 7 and 15 can). But you can see that there's still a simple algorithm and that the crux is determining the number of iterations. Regardless, this is still deterministic. They didn't use any integers >2^71, which we absolutely know the sequences for and we absolutely know all terminate at 1.
To solve the Collatz Conjecture (and probably win a Fields Metal) you must do one of 2 things.
1) Provide a counter-example
2) Show that this happens for all n, which is an infinite set of numbers, so this strictly cannot be done by demonstration.
reply