Hardware keeps getting exponentially faster and software keeps getting exponentially slower. The only people seeming to benefit from better hardware is lazy developers.
Hardware keeps getting exponentially faster and software keeps getting exponentially slower. The only people seeming to benefit from better hardware is lazy developers.
I didn’t know if this was possible so I looked for some videos.
This guy isn’t very big, but does it fairly easily with his fingertips, and can crush it with a full grip but it takes him some effort. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IGCawR9vBXE&t=64
Three big guys here with full grips do pretty poorly, then the big guy turns it to pulp in a second. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eICtcsd0TvY&t=288
I think you’ve got your work cut out for you.
I think voters should petition their local officials to change their local election systems to use some sort of proportional voting. Then we’ll get better local officials and we can keep pushing this system to higher levels.
I don’t like NPV. I wrote about that in response to someone else, but in short, it’s the same mentality as allocating all electors to someone who wins only a portion of the vote, which is inherently flawed. It’s better than what we have now, but it’s a hard sell because people never want their vote to go to a candidate they didn’t support, so there will always be states that rightly don’t support it.
Part of the problem seems to be that no one seems to know what the electrical college is. The difference in voting power you describe above is not the electoral college. That’s that fact that states have disproportionate voting power. The college reflects that, but it’s not due to the college. You could have that without the college. Also, that disproportionate power is something to disagree with, but it has not resulted in a president winning an election despite losing the popular vote. You could keep disproportionate power and the college, and if states allocated proportionally, none of the times the US has elected a president who lost the popular vote would have occured. Conversely, if you removed disproportionate power but kept allocating all votes to the pop vote winner in the state, not a single election outcome would have been different. The problem is that states don’t allocate proportionally. That’s it.
I already said that two states allocate proportionally…
NPV is minor improvement and a terrible approach. States don’t have an incentive to allocate their electors to a candidate that wasn’t popular in the state. That makes it hard to adopt, and certainly some states will never adopt it. It has gained ground, and maybe it will take effect in the states where it’s passed, but I guarantee that as soon as a some states are allocating electors to a candidate that wasn’t popular there, they’ll repeal it. Conversely, everyone is incentived for their vote to go toward the candidate they actually voted for. Getting states to do that doesn’t require buy in from a dozen states like NPV does. It’s a state level incentive that achieves everything NPV hopes to achieve, that’s far easier to implement, and has the added bonus of not further supporting the shitty two party system.
I don’t think there’s ever a case where the electoral college itself has ever been the problem. The problem is the same one that plagues local elections but in a different form: there isn’t proportional voting.
At the national level, states allocate all of their electors to the candidate that wins the popular vote in that state. If a candidate wins 51% of the state’s votes they get 100% of the electors. That has historically been the reason presidents win despite losing the popular vote, not because of the college itself. Even without the college, if states allocated their voting power that way, you’d have the exact same problem.
At the local level the problem is more confined in that an individual can only put all of their influence behind a single candidate. This forces one to choose the least bad option.
The solution at all levels is proportional voting. States should allocate their electors according to the proportion of votes candidate receive. This needs some thought to do because it’s impossible to allocate exactly proportionally, but it’s a simple problem to address. At least two states do this. For every election I’m aware of where the president won despite losing the popular vote, this would have prevented that.
At all levels, something like ranked choice voting (there are other possibilities) allows voters to support multiple candidates, letting them give the most support for the candidate they genuinely prefer, but giving a hedge to support a candidate they do t love but that’s better than their worst candidate. This could be applied on top of a state’s system for allocating electors.
This is probably a top 3 priority for creating a workable government instead of this shit show we have now. It’s gaining significant reactions with several states using some sort of proportional system, but there’s heavy opposition from the current policitians. They know if it gets through, they’ll lose their elections, and won’t be able to jerk around their constituents. If you’re sick of one shit party vs another shit party, do everything you can to support proportional voting at all levels, and to get your state to allocate electors proportionally (not like the NPV pact does).
If he tries to sell large amount at once, presumably the price would plummet. I can’t imagine there are anywhere near 3.5 billion dollars of buyers out there for this.
What is going on at Microsoft? Did anyone ask for this? How about they make search work again and not use 4 Gb just turn turn on the computer?
T Mobile has an app called Scam Shield that seems to do a better job than Google. If a call is identified as a scam, your phone won’t ring. You can report ones that get through. I installed this a few days ago, and it’s much more manageable now. I get something like 20 scam calls a day. This kept 15 or so from ringing.
I have started asking callers various disheartening questions, like “Is this what you planned for in life?”, “Does your family laugh at you?”, “Do your friends have better jobs than yours?”, “Are you an embarrassment to your parents?”. Most hang up, but a good number get upset - I imagine because their parents really are embarrassed by them. One person, whom I asked if he was happy with his choices in life, said “I am in hell”. My hope with these questions is for them to rethink a life of trying to cheat old people out of money.
The article headline is misleading. Nothing in the study indicates that fingerprints can’t be used to uniquely identity people. It claims to show that although each fingerprint on a single person is unique, they have similar features. Thus, one could assess whether a pair of fingerprints come from the same person.
Rather that individuals setting up or seeking out an instance, I could see institutes whose members produce content using it, but they’d have to really care about avoiding YouTube. Blender foundation is an example, and they have a peer tube instance, but maybe universities, nonprofits, or research institutions.
Could you elaborate on this? Is this new community restricting specifically mentions of Musk, or is there a broader difference? In particular, there are a lot of people claiming that Twitter is a tech company and that it belongs in tech news. Is that also the view of this new community or do you consider Twitter a social media company, with only tangential and generally not newsworthy actions related to technology?
It’s odd that you’re saying you shouldn’t consider the specific cases where C excels and then narrowing down things to the Web, where languages like php excel. So now you probably have some idea why your experience is so narrow. There’s a lot more to programming than the Web, and there’s always going to be.
“The software development market evolved from C to very high language languages such as Javascript/Typescript and the majority of stuff developed is done or will be done in those languages thus the CPU architecture becomes irrelevant.”
I saw someone else make a similar comment about C. People track these things, and C has been in the top 2 most widely used languages for more than 2 decades. Not knowing this should probably make you wonder why your background has resulted in such a narrow experience.
There’s still a big difference between what can collected from an app vs a Web site.
It’s also a lower case k in km.
I am no fan of Google Messages for Web, but I have no problem with it constantly losing connection and needing to be repaired. This sounds like you have a different issue.
This is the first thing I thought of. ReplayGain has been how this has been done for decades. It doesn’t need to reencode the file, which will reduce quality, and there are programs that will scan folders to calculate the gain for each file. Other options suggested that reencode seem unnecessary and inferior.
“Interestingly, this effect cannot be explained by differences in participants’ experience with generative AI models, as that variable is insignificant in the mode”
When predictors are correlated, which is most likely the case here, this analysis cannot separately estimate their effects. The software will end up splitting the total effect size between the two predictors. Without describing collineariry between predictors, it’s not possible here to judge whether experience with AI is truly unimportant or the analysis is merely incapable of spotting the effect.
As for eroding confidence in reviews, this will make it worse, but I already put next to no stock in user reviews anymore. You don’t need AI to make a good human-like review that lies about a product, and there are plenty of those around.