orman.bsky.social
Programmer dragon fursuiter | Also goes by @lizardorman |
2,195 posts
616 followers
982 following
Regular Contributor
Active Commenter
comment in response to
post
She knew what she was talking about.
comment in response to
post
We certainly don't disagree on the principle, I guess I'm just less sure of many further options she has outside of her own share. She's brought up the issue once but the article doesn't say enough to judge how likely she'd be able to make further progress convincing them or whether husband agrees
comment in response to
post
And therefore... what, insist on separate funds with her husband? Divorce him over something he doesn't actually have unilateral control over?
comment in response to
post
Not really following you, sorry. The implication I saw isn't that the agency pays them as a couple, it's that, if she resigns her share goes to her husband and, separately, they're a married couple who share a bank account and no longer bother to track who's money is who's.
comment in response to
post
Yeah, it certainly has persuasive value there on top of the principle. Abstractly you can argue the difference about the money taking a longer route to the same pockets, but those specific people can't claim the share she'd be resigning was worthless.
comment in response to
post
comment in response to
post
I haven't seen the film first hand, but AIUI Mitch is there and says explicitly he has a boyfriend. This promo being an ad for a sequel would be logical, but I've not actually seen that mentioned either
comment in response to
post
Tbc, assuming by opting out you mean resigning and letting the shares go to the husband, do you think that has any functional impact on how she benefits, w/ the implication that her funds are mingled with her husband's as well? (I'm assuming you'd say she should still even if "no" out of principle)
comment in response to
post
like we have been collectively bamboozled into thinking that talking crudely and being politically evil is a hallmark of the underclasses, so when a politician does these things he is falsely identified as a salt-of-the-earth normal man with normal outlooks
comment in response to
post
... By "human trafficker" they still mean like, transporting escaped slaves?
comment in response to
post
Such a wild take. If you want to accuse the Union of being immoral and uncaring about racism, you can (correctly AIUI) say they started fighting back to maintain their empire even as their people became unwilling.
(also AIUI attitudes shifted more to, "this has so got to die" through the war)
comment in response to
post
Mildly surprised nobody's asked a state governor to do something like that, especially with how many PDs are reported to just refuse to do their jobs whenever they get upset
comment in response to
post
You don't want to not give the police the money needed to do the same thing they're currently doing, you want them to be doing less and give them the lesser money to do that, and in extremis, you want them doing nothing and needing no money for it
comment in response to
post
I know there's tons of hand-wringing about "Defund the police" being badly phrased, much of it disingenuous but IMO the core problem wasn't what it said, but what it didn't say - that those funds aren't disappearing, you're investing them in the same services, but no longer as the PD's job
comment in response to
post
I did join a union a few years ago and you (generic) should too
comment in response to
post
I feel the same way but all the parties here in a position to do anything seem steadfastly determined to ignore young people
comment in response to
post
I don't have a fun response to the people you're making fun of (just incoherent rage) but have a cool fact I only learned recently. Can't really get my head how woke having a black man above the white MC was looking back from 2025
comment in response to
post
Smartphones are sadly ubiquitous so touching grass no longer takes you away from the dopamine slot machine
comment in response to
post
I just cannot get over that, on top of the endless pile of other absurdities of this country, we've accidentally but genuinely fallen into Liz being "Queen Eternal" because she vastly overshadowed Camilla in the pop consciousness.
(W for Games Worksop getting the parody spot on 40 years early?)
comment in response to
post
That would be an extremely critical fact for handling the situation appropriately if it were true - can you cite a source that can actually show an advantage that's not just washed out by variation?
comment in response to
post
... But do you mean Liz or Camilla?
comment in response to
post
Does Tolkien's "we have detailed first- or second-hand accounts of the creation Elves, Men and Dwarves... and Hobbits are just here somehow and who knows what's up with Tom Bombadil" count?
comment in response to
post
"You are the worst copper merchant I have ever heard of..."
... Oh no, whether you know the second half of that exchange is probably going to turn into an age test soon if it hasn't already
comment in response to
post
There's no apparent route that'll avoid issues with how AI models scale as the models get more complicated, the best you can do is make the per-weight cost smaller
comment in response to
post
There's an obvious architectural difference - the neural bit of an LLM is a oneway pipeline that conventional code glues into to feed it discrete and stateless queries, living brains are stateful feedback loops
comment in response to
post
Yeah, there are so many ways to frame, "oh we didn't think it'd be a big deal" in plausibly deniable ways that don't involve admitting straight up incompetence
comment in response to
post
All the architecture improvements are "just" making dents in the constant factors but there's no suggestion of making the scaleability any better
comment in response to
post
Bitcoin is the archetypal O(1/n) problem so perhaps not the best comparison.
While I haven't kept up w/ the research, AIUI the fundamental bottlenecks are that a query is at least linear in the weights and unavoidably *super*linear in context size. Both of which are fundamental to the LLM's utility
comment in response to
post
Also the whole relatively ubiquitous culture of these things being reliable as research tools, despite how widely avaliable even lay explanations of how they're effectively very sophisticated autocomplete are is kinda scary.
#WeMustDissent
comment in response to
post
A friend called them "plausible lies machines" and never been inaccurate
comment in response to
post
(sorry, not trying to harp on you personally at all, just had lots of of remarks)
Verifiable correctness is an insanely strong property in general, even for normal code. I can't conceive how you'd get anywhere close with LLMs, given they're black boxes
comment in response to
post
Architectural refinements might make the resource-per-weight smaller, but AFAIK the expectation is still that qualitative leaps require multiplying the number of parameters which AFAIK necessarily multiplies the resource costs to both query and train
comment in response to
post
The *known* mistakes will, which is a problem when that doesn't correspond to the underlying processes improving qualitively