Cool tech but I question it’s usefulness. They focus on clinical in their language but anybody who’s on telemetry orders needs waveforms not beats per minute. I care if they’re suddenly in afib, not that they’re a little tachy after getting up to go to the bathroom.

Yeah when you’ve got a hotel room that’s pretty standard American English. Usually it’s “go to my room/house to pee” but nobody really takes it as you peeing though the door into your house or something

It’s because he’s a quadzilla with undeveloped glutes. Explosive and significant short term power but incapable of extended endurance.

I mean it’ll still be a joke even if he gets elected, but it’s a bigger joke that’s largely independent of him.

Pre print journalism fucking bugs me because the journalists themselves can’t actually judge if anything is worth discussing so they just look for click bait shit.

This methodology to discover what interventions do in human environments seems particularly deranged to me though:

We address this question using a novel method – generative social simulation – that embeds Large Language Models within Agent-Based Models to create socially rich synthetic platforms.

LLM agents trained on social media dysfunction recreate it unfailingly. No shit. I understand they gave them personas to adopt as prompts, but prompts cannot and do not override training data. As we’ve seen multiple times over and over. LLMs fundamentally cannot maintain an identity from a prompt. They are context engines.

Particularly concerning sf the silo claims. LLMs riffing on a theme over extended interactions because the tokens keep coming up that way is expected behavior. LLMs are fundamentally incurious and even more prone to locking into one line of text than humans as the longer conversation reinforces it.

Determining the functionality of what the authors describe as a novel approach might be more warranted than making conclusions on it.

*forking

If you take a close look at the trajectory from 2008 and the wage, asset, and income inequality trends from the stagflation days to today you’ll find that imprudent rate cuts have been the name of the game for awhile now. Yeah Trump will overcharge it and cause the massive collapse and inflation faster but it’s coming regardless. Powell ain’t no Volker but even Volker couldn’t fix the absolutely shit fundamentals the neolibs have fooled themselves into thinking a healthy economy is made of.

Now EOD can capture the objective by themselves.

Gotta do something about Alice first.

Yeah, all we got is man made tragedy of the commons disasters where the data centers deplete not only the water for humans, but the water for the data centers. Poof, no more data.

Why the hell are they trying to build data centers in the fucking Sonoran Desert anyway.

I do not likev the flounder eyes of the fish in bed.

The primary problem with heat pumps is the steeper the gradient is, the less effective the thermodynamic cycle is at pumping the heat. What you’re envisioning is locking both sides in a very steep gradient and throwing any semblance of thermodynamic efficiency out the window. The more heat you pump out of the refrigerator and into the water heater, the less there is to pump. Similarly the more you pump into to heater, the less you transfer. You could do a multi stage thing that switches to a third environment to make up for this, but since you’re not taking a shower at the same time you’re opening your fridge you’re unlikely to see much gains by linking them. And if they had no third environment at all, well you’d be having that compressor trying for impressively low temps in your freezer after a shower. And avoid going full hot water after a grocery trip if you don’t want to get burned.

This stuff can be done on a commercial scale, but it’s more nuanced than just linking the condenser and evaporator coils.

Circle? It clearly says draw a line around whatever you decided wrongly to indicate. Lines don’t curve and aren’t boxes, so good luck.

The problem is looking at it too functionally. You cannot fix it by “fixing” voting as if voting magically creates a functional government. It’s a method to derive consensus. You cannot look at a system that is failing to produce consensus and then fix it by directly removing anything that increases consensus. That’s insane.

You need to critically look at the entire system and identify what the problem is. In this case it’s largely the abstraction layers. People now interact with their government through filters even greater than the old Hearst days. Information flows from media filters to the population and from the population to government through social media filters. And both of those filters have their own agendas. Of course nobody believes the resulting government is responsive or legitimate. It’s not.

There are many potential solutions for civic engagement. But that largely means breaking down the very walls that powerful interests have created. There’s no easy solution to it. Certainly not “let’s make these stupid people unable to vote.” A solution is much more radical and takes understanding both what you want to achieve and how the current system is preventing it.

Sure. Disenfranchise most people. That’s a suitable hack to a
checks notes
stable, legitimate, and responsive government.

Even China would have more political legitimacy than such a system. It would collapse almost immediately.

If you ever want a good example of functionalist ideas leading to absolutely uncritical nonsense, here it is.

What’s funny is this dude essentially argues the opposite. He’s a dude that got upset some publication said killing fascists was fun. Gets angry at any female characters that don’t exist purely to fulfill his fantasies. He’s pro gruel.

That would explain him getting in a tizzy over that excerpt then

Legendary Drops: The Worst “Non-Political” Gamer says you’re largely correct

So the argument of this video is anti-woke crusaders don’t exist? That they’re not organized and virulent since gamergate? That they’re responding to as he put it legitimate “shallow politics, performative casting, and and tone deaf writing” (this is the point I stopped watching the video) instead of knee jerk misogyny and racism? Because that’s what the excerpt he highlighted is obviously discussing as a risk. So either he thinks that those groups don’t exist or that all consumers are legitimately part of those groups. Or he’s just misrepresenting some bullshit he read from their annual report for rage bait.

Can I get 15 half eaten cheeseburgers to go, knowwhatimsayin.