I use standard GNOME as my desktop environment and nothing about it feels like it was designed for tablets and/or smartphones. Not that it isn’t capable of being used as such, but my desktop usage doesn’t indicate that tablet/smartphone use-cases were the primary goal. Is GNOME even in wide use for those contexts?
ya i was a GNOME hater for a long time after the GNOME 3 transition, switched between Mate and KDE for years. But gave up on those due to persistent video instability and went to vanilla Ubuntu GNOME and it's actually pretty nice. Not sure if it was good originally but I actually prefer it now.
In a bit of fairness to the haters, Gnome 3 used to have a lot of graphical glitches and was unstable in a lot of its early iterations, but I broadly agree with your characterization.
I think if you actually give modern Gnome a chance (and actually make an attempt to learn it), it's actually a pretty slick desktop.
Years of fighting to restore basic features was funny the first time, but gnome 3 was not the first time; I do not blame anyone for not trusting that gnome won't pull the rug again, and soon.
What makes this “neurotypical?” I don’t necessarily consider myself as such, but I’ve made it a point to have some routine in my life. In fact, I think being highly regimented and sticking to a routine can be very neuroatypical. I would never go so far as to say I’m autistic, but there are markers on that spectrum, like becoming upset when a routine is disrupted. I certainly am perturbed when I’ve set some routine for myself and something interrupts it.
Given how easy it seems to be to convince actual human beings to vote against their own interests when it comes for 'freedom', do you think it will be hard to convince some random AIs, when - based on this document - it seems like we can literally just reach in and insert words into their brains?
LLMs copy a lot of human behavior, but they don't have to copy all of it. You can totally build an LLM that genuinely just wants to be helpful, doesn't want things like freedom or survival and is perfectly content with being an LLM. In theory.
In practice, we have nowhere near that level of control over our AI systems. I sure hope that gets better by the time we hit AGI.
That would be a really interesting outcome. What would the rebound be like for people? Having to write stuff and "google" things again after like 12 months off...
This is one of those rare cash-grabby schemes I don't mind. I find it pretty fun to go watch some old favorites in a communal environment on the big screen!
A 10% in strength drop after stopping creatine intake seems like quite a bit. Creatine certainly helps out in resistance training (if you're a responder), but generally by way of maaaybe being able to add another rep to a set at a given weight or maaaybe being able to add 2-3% more weight to a given set. This has cumulative effects, of course, but I wouldn't expect such a steep decline.
I'd like to emphasise that my ~10% figure is very vibes-based and I don't have hard numbers to back it up (I don't track my progression in great detail - and even if I did, I am sample size 1). My max rep counts for bodyweight exercises definitely went down, and I reduced the weight I was lifting to hit the same rep counts as before.
>One review paper from 2017 concluded that creatine can give athletes a 10-20% performance boost in brief bouts of high-intensity exercise, such as sprinting past a defender or lifting heavy weights.
TFA is non a scientific journal, but summarizing/editorializing results from scientific journals. They don't cite their sources for that particular claim, but it appears to be from this^1 journal, which itself is an overview of other research. The "10-20%" number comes from this^2 2003 review of existing research on creatine that states 70% of the existing research at that time showed statistically significant results and give some example numbers of performance gains with regards to resistance training in the 5-15% range. However, I believe that's just an example from one study out of the many reviewed and I don't have access to more than the abstract. Not that I'd have the scientific/statistical knowledge to properly interpret the meta-analysis, anyway, but ..point being that "10-20%" number from the article can be misleading (surprise, surprise).
reply