It’s not that much slower. Our 20a outlets give 2,400w, while yours gove 3000w. And, it’s still faster than a stovetop kettle. Its more that we don’t make hot tea very regularly, while drip coffee was the dominant hot drink for so long.

Same ways gay people get ‘straight married’.

Could be family pressure. Could be internalized hetreonormativity making them feel like they ‘should’ do this. Could be they haven’t really realized, come to terms with, or accepted their own identity.

I mean, think of a ‘stereotypical’ aromantic guy. He’s interested in women, and sleeps around a lot, but despite not getting feelings, might ‘settle down’ with one partner because its ‘normal, respectable’, even if it’s not something that makes him happy. Probably won’t make the wife happy either, but that’s it’s own issue, why she might marry a guy that ‘doesn’t do romance’.

I specifically called out not ‘difficulty’ in making friends, but ‘desire’ to make friends. As far as I’m aware, autistic people still desire friends usually.

Huh, that first one feels more like Schizoid personality disorder. My impression is that, while autistic people can struggle to make and keep friends, they do generally still want to have the same amount of friends as an allistic person.

538 no longer has Nate Silver or his model; Disney bought it and fired him like a year ago or so.

Still, I agree; I don’t like his politics, but his analysis of polls and numbers is probably the best out there.

Those do usually need a fridge and sink though. Not sure if it’s a code requirement, but all the ones I’ve seen had that.

Might be why the call it a ‘wellness room’, instead of a mothers room; doesn’t meet the legal requirements.

Decaf does actually still have caffeine, just normally like 97% less.

Which, I guess is like the boneless wings having 97% less bones, now in convinient needle shaped shards

I mean, that’s the point of Dune? The ‘prophesies’ aren’t real, they’re seeded by the Bene Gesserit, the same group that spent millennia breeding the ‘savior’. And, he’s not meant to really be a savior, but their catspaw.

But also, he’s definitely not actually a savior, on account of all the death he brings. It’s complicated, but overall a deconstruction of white savior narratives and similar stories.

Also, article skips over the chemical part of this: Vitriol, the name for the impure sulfuric acid they used, was green (due to some iron and cupper sulfates). You can use sulfuric acid to purify gold; it’ll dissolve the silver and copper in a gold alloy, but not the gold itself, giving you 100% gold.

However, the green lion can also ‘ascend’ by combing with nitric acid to make aqua regia, where it can dissolve gold, “devouring it”.

I agree. I’m very much for more research into fusion. I’m still somewhat skeptical of it ever being ‘infinite cheap energy’. But even if it never becomes a ‘good energy source’, the advancement of knowledge is valuable. So its not like I think fusion is a scam overall.

But I think this particular company is.

That is what I think the owner is doing here. Scamming venture capital firms for a tech that cannot work.

And I mean, its not like I have any proof. I can’t read minds; maybe he is a true believer.

But this company feels like those companies back in the 80s that sold tickets to mars, for the rockets they were ‘just about to build’; a scam.

This isn’t a research firm. This isn’t trying to find the exact settings and layouts to make fusion possible. If the article can be taken at face value, this is a company to make a commercial fusion plant. And I find that, in 2023, patently absurd.

I hope it works.

But I’m skeptical enough to say that I think this is a scam. We’re closing in, research wise, on getting fusion to generate more power than it takes to run. Which is awesome!

But its still a far trek from that figure, to producing enough power to be practical (I’ve heard it said you really need to aim for 10x more production than input, minimum, for it to make any sense).

And that is still a trek from making a fusion plant competitive with existing grid power.

I’m skeptical if this plant they’re building will even generate power, which is like three steps away from making commercial sense at all.

I dunno, I really don’t get either of them. They just seem like dreadfully boring games. Played like, 6 hours of each, and I just, don’t get the appeal, at all.

Movies and TV are boring. In the past two decades, there’s been a small handful of stuff that’s watchable, but most of the media is like, painfully boring.

None? I’ve never really understood the appeal of ‘rewatching stuff’. My favorite movie(s) are the LotR ones, and I’ve probably watched it through… three times over my life?

I mean, the meme isn’t centrist. Even if the meme is literally 100% accurate, the reasonable thing would be to be a democrat. I’d take someone who can’t govern over someone who is literally evil every time.

Beyond that, the idea of the meme I think is accurate. The Dem do suck, in a lot of ways. They’re also, not as bad as the Republicans. So I’ll politically support the dems, even if I’m not exactly going to be jumping for joy about doing so.

I don’t think its ‘centrist’ to say that the two party systems is set up to overwhelmingly support the interests of the wealthy, no matter which of the two parties are in power.

Consuming content illegally is by definition a crime, yes. It also has no effect on your output. A summary or review of that content will not be infringing, it will still be fair use.

That their use is infringing and a crime is your opinion.

“My opinion”? have you read the headline? Its not my opinion that matters, its that of the prosecution in this lawsuit. And this lawsuit indeed alleges that copyright infringement has occurred; it’ll be up to the courts to see if the claim holds water.

I’m definitely not sure that GPT4 or other AI models are copyright infringing or otherwise illegal. But, I think that there’s enough that seems questionable that a lawsuit is valid to do some fact-finding, and honestly, I feel like the law is a few years behind on AI anyway.

But it seem plausible that the AI could be found to be ‘illegally distributing works’, or otherwise have broken IP laws at some point during their training or operation. A lot depends on what kind of agreements were signed over the contents of the training packages, something I frankly know nothing about, and would like to see come to light.

I mean, you can do that, but that’s a crime.

Which is exactly what Sarah Silverman is claiming ChatGPT is doing.

And, beyond a individual crime of a person reading a pirated book, again, we’re talking about ChatGPT and other AI magnifying reach and speed, beyond what an individual person ever could do even if they did nothing but read pirated material all day, not unlike websites like The Pirate Bay. Y’know, how those website constantly get taken down and have to move around the globe to areas where they’re beyond the reach of the law, due to the crimes they’re doing.

I’m not like, anti-piracy or anything. But also, I don’t think companies should be using pirated software, and my big concern about LLMs aren’t really for private use, but for corporate use.

The issue isn’t that people are using others works for ‘derivative’ content.

The issue is that, for a person to ‘derive’ comedy from Sarah Silverman the ‘analogue’ way, you have to get her works legally, be that streaming her comedy specials, or watching movies/shows she’s written for.

With chat GPT and other AI, its been ‘trained’ on her work (and, presumably as many other’s works as possible) once, and now there’s no ‘views’, or even sources given, to those properties.

And like a lot of digital work, its reach and speed is unprecedented. Like, previously, yeah, of course you could still ‘derive’ from people’s works indirectly, like from a friend that watched it and recounted the ‘good bits’, or through general ‘cultural osmosis’. But that was still limited by the speed of humans, and of culture. With AI, it can happen a functionally infinite number of times, nearly instantly.

Is all that to say Silverman is 100% right here? Probably not. But I do think that, the legality of ChatGPT, and other AI that can ‘copy’ artist’s work, is worth questioning. But its a sticky enough issue that I’m genuinely not sure what the best route is. Certainly, I think current AI writing and image generation ought to be ineligible for commercial use until the issue has at least been addressed.

Yeah, both claims can be true (about it being a hostile takeover, and Kurvitz being a bad boss), but I feel like one of those things is radically worse (and more illegal) than the other.

(and also, I question PMG’s interview process, where it felt like the spent equal time on both claims, and more attention and interviews on the ‘Kurvitz is a bad boss/employee’ claim, when I feel like more time should have been spent cross-interviewing Kompus for the discrepancies, and the bias the employee’s have to cater to their current boss rather than their former boss.)