Lenguador

That reminds me of a joke.

A museum guide is talking to a group about the dinosaur fossils on exhibit.
"This one," he says, "Is 6 million and 2 years old."
"Wow," says a patron, "How do you know the age so accurately?"
"Well," says the guide, "It was 6 million years old when I started here 2 years ago."

From Wikipedia: this is only a 1-sigma result compared to theory using lattice calculations. It would have been 5.1-sigma if the calculation method had not been improved.
Many calculations in the standard model are mathematically intractable with current methods, so improving approximate solutions is not trivial and not surprising that we've found improvements.

So, taking the average bicep volume as 1000cm3, this muscle could: exert 1 tonne of force, contact 8% (1.6cm for a 20cm long bicep), and require 400kV and must be above 29 degrees Celcius.

Maybe someone with access to the paper can double check the math and get the conversion efficiency from electrical to mechanical.

I expect there's a good trade-off to be made to lower the force but increase the contraction and lower the voltage. Possibly some kind of ratcheting mechanism with tiny cells could be used to overcome the crazy high voltage requirement.

I asked the same question of GPT3.5 and got the response "The former chancellor of Germany has the book." And also: "The nurse has the book. In the scenario you described, the nurse is the one who grabs the book and gives it to the former chancellor of Germany." and a bunch of other variations.

Anyone doing these experiments who does not understand the concept of a "temperature" parameter for the model, and who is not controlling for that, is giving bad information.

Either you can say: At 0 temperature, the model outputs XYZ. Or, you can say that at a certain temperature value, the model's outputs follow some distribution (much harder to do).

Yes, there's a statistical bias in the training data that "nurses" are female. And at high temperatures, this prior is over-represented. I guess that's useful to know for people just blindly using the free chat tool from openAI. But it doesn't necessarily represent a problem with the model itself. And to say it "fails entirely" is just completely wrong.

I wonder what specifically they're interested in vs long deployments in Antarctica (people do 12 months rotations in some stations there).

I found this article discussing the psychology of placements in Australian antarctic stations: https://psychology.org.au/for-members/publications/inpsych/2021/february-march-issue-1/life-in-the-australian-antarctic-program.

The differences as I see them are:

1. Smaller crew
2. No unsuited outdoor time
3. Smaller space
4. Communication latency / outages
5. Personal belongings weight/volume limits
6. Dietary restrictions

Haha, thanks for the correction. If you have to use your degree in ethics, perhaps you could add your perspective to the thread?

If you can get past the weird framing device, the Plinkett reviews of the Star Wars prequels are an excellent deep dive into the issues with those films: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FxKtZmQgxrI&list=PL5919C8DE6F720A2D

Jenny Nicholson's videos are great, but her documentary on "The Last Bronycon" is special, as the realization dawns on you while watching that she has more connection to Brony culture than you might have guessed: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4fVOF2PiHnc

According to consequentialism:

1. Imagining sexual fantasies in one's own mind is fine.
2. Any action which affects no-one but the actor, such as manifesting those fantasies, is also fine.
3. Distributing non-consensual pornography publicly is not fine.
4. Distributing tools for the purpose of non-consensual pornography is a grey area (enables (2), which is permissible, and (3), which is not).

From this perspective, the only issue one could have with deep fakes is the distribution of pornography which should only be used privately. The author dismisses this take as "few people see his failure to close the tab as the main problem". I guess I am one of the few.

Another perspective is to consider the pornography itself to be impermissible. Which, as the author notes, implies that (1) is also impermissible. Most would agree (1) is morally fine (some may consider it disgusting, but that doesn't make it immoral).

In the author's example of Ross teasing Rachel, the author concludes that the imagining is the moral quandry, as opposed to the teasing itself. Drinking water isn't amoral. Sending a video of drinking water isn't amoral. But sending that video to someone dying of thirst is.

The author's conclusion is also odd:

Today, it is clear that deepfakes, unlike sexual fantasies, are part of a systemic technological degrading of women that is highly gendered (almost all pornographic deepfakes involve women) [...] Fantasies, on the other hand, are not gendered [...]

1. Could you not also equally claim that women are being worshipped instead of degraded? Only by knowing the mind of both the consumer and the model can you determine which is happening. And of course each could have different perspectives.
2. If there were equal amounts of deep fakes of men as women, the conclusion implies that deep fakes would be fine (as that is the only distinction drawn), which is probably not the author's intention.
3. I take issue with the use of systemic. The purpose of deep fakes is for sexual gratification of the user, not degradation. Only if you consider being the object of focus for sexual gratification to be degradation could the claim that there is anything systemic. If it was about degradation, wouldn't consumers be trying to notify targeted people of their deep fake videos and make them as public as possible?
4. Singling out "women" as a group is somewhat disingenuous. Women are over-represented in all pornography because the majority of consumers are men and the majority of men are only attracted to women. This is quite clear as ugly women aren't likely to be targeted. It's not about "being a woman", it's about "being attractive to pornography consumers". I think to claim "degradation of women" with the caveat that "half of women won't be affected, and also a bunch of attractive males will be" makes the claim vacuous.

For microcontrollers, quite often. Mainly because visibility is quite poor, you're often trying to do stupid things, problems tend to be localized, and JTAG is easier than a firmware upload.

For other applications, rarely. Debuggers help when you don't understand what's going on at a micro level, which is more common with less experience or when the code is more complex due to other constraints.

Applications running in full fledged operating systems often have plenty of log output, and it's trivial to add more, formatted as you need. You can view a broad slice of the application with printouts, and iteratively tune those prints to what you need, vs a debugger which is better suited for observing a small slice of the application.

Cool, you posted the original with the Tim Minchin callout.

The approach requires multiple base stations, each in the path of a ray which is detected at both the station and receiver, and the receiver's position can only be known if there is communication with the stations.

I'm on Kbin, I think that feature isn't working yet. But thanks for replying, that would have helped me on another instance.