If the goal is to visualize growth trends, I don’t think raw user counts are the correct value to track on the Y-axis at all. That’s where my head was at when I said it doesn’t make sense. Abusing the Y-axis to try and coax data out in this case is just a symptom of having the wrong measure.
Daily new users. Percent user growth.
Yeah when I showed the cop the graph of my speed before getting in my car to be 67000mph (speed of the earth around the sun) to 67080mphwhen I was driving it he couldn’t see the difference so I didn’t get the ticket.
Or sometimes choosing a common-sense reference makes sense.
Which isn’t to say THIS one does, it doesn’t, but the absolutism of “it’s nerf or nothing” is a tad extreme.
Older garage door openers with a wired button, at least in N.A should just be as simple as shorting the wires. For “lock” and “light”, you short w/ a capacitor.
You can wire it to a relay connected to an ESP wireless microcontroller (I’m using an ESP01). From there you can use ESPHome to connect it to HomeAssistant. From there, the world is your oyster for access control/monitoring.
Clicking through 90 fucking prompts if I wanna donate to charity or learn about their credit card offerings or if I want to sign up for their rewards program or if I want to give them my email so they’ll email me a receipt?
I feel like if we had bob as Michael we would have gotten some David cross episodes out of the deal
“And Jesus spake unto the crowd : ‘Verily I say to thee, bring forth every bear from within the forest and removeth their arms. Once you have completeth this task, attach AR-15s in their place. Do this, in remembrance of me’”
Why wait for classroom debate?
“Which is the most important?”
There is a solid theological answer to that question within the context of Christianity, which is that there are REALLY only two of them.
If they say they all equally important: light them up for how fucking poorly they understand their own holy book.
If they are consistent and answer 2, then why you proposing a bill for 10?
I agree that the author didn’t do a great job explaining, but they are right about a few things.
Primarily, LLMs are not truth machines. That just flatly and plainly not what they are. No researcher, not even OpenAI makes such a claim.
The problem is the public perception that they are. Or that they almost are. Because a lot of time, they’re right. They might even be right more frequently than some people’s dumber friends. And even when they’re wrong, they sound right. Even when it’s wrong, it still sounds smarter than most peoples smartest friends.
So, I think that the point is that there is a perception gap between what LLMs are, and what people THINK that they are.
As long as the perception is more optimistic than the reality, a bubble of some kind will exist. But just because there is a “reckoning” somewhere in the future doesn’t imply it will crash to nothing. It just means the investment will align more closely to realistic expectations as the clarity of what realistic expectations even are become more clear.
LLMs are going to revolutionize and also destroy many industries. It will absolutely fundamentally change the way we interact with technology. No doubt…but for applications which strictly demand correctness, they are not appropriate tools. And investors don’t really understand that yet.
I agree they aren’t practically interesting egde cases, because in order to hit them, they’re no longer meaningful for realistically describing pirate ships. At very high turning speeds, it also ceases to matter that one is 3/4 than that the other either. But at that point, we’re talking about pirate ships spinning like ballerinas across the seven seas.
Yeah, I’ve got a similar thought.
There do exist scenarios where there would be a solution… For example if the base turning speed is 0, or the distance between them is already sufficiently small (and their relative orientations are aligned).
Thank you!
Although, I’m realizing that for completeness, there probably are mathematical constraints around the relationship between the required absolute values of turning speeds and movement speeds. They’re kinda egde-casey for any practically imagined scenarios, but would come into play for a rigorous proof.
It depends on what you mean by “escape”, and what you view as the alternative.
I suspect that the pursuer could never converge on the same instantaneous point, given sufficient initial distance (and orientation). At a certain distance, the prey could enter a stable orbit around the pursuer. I don’t have a mathematical proof but I strongly suspect this to be the case,and I can envision the structure of a proof.
Could the prey infinitely extend the gap between themselves and the pursuer? No. I don’t have the tooling to actually present such a proof, but of that one I am confident.
I think if you introduced concepts of obstacles and a “radius of escape” (where if the gap meets a threshold the predator is permanently foiled), then there are almost certainly scenarios where the prey could escape.
We actually see this scenario play out in nature all the time
Here’s one:
Actually READ the Mueller Report.
In the section around social media, it describes how IRA employees masquerade on EVERY side of a wedge issue, with the goal being to polarize.
Like, their goal isn’t to crush BLM or take away abortion rights. Those are table stakes. They don’t REALLY care. That doesn’t destroy a democracy.
Their goal is to make having difficult conversations impossible by making each side appear to be as irrational and shrill as possible. They want people to conclude that whoever is on the other side of any issue is a dangerous lost cause, unfit for participation in society.
With this understanding, people need to understand that whatever your political alignment, there are IRA employees in your spaces saying things you might agree with. But just because you agree with them, doesn’t mean that their methodologies aren’t specifically tailored to damage Western Democracy.
Free speech absolutist
By this logic, nobody can do or say anything ever because there are unspeakably terrible things going on at all times, forever. Gaza, while terrible, isn’t even the only terrible thing happening. There were terrible things going on before. There will be terrible things to come after.
This isn’t intended to minimize the suffering of anyone, but it’s impractical to demand that a leader only speak in a tone appropriate to the worst thing currently going on on the planet.
DON’T COPY THAT FLOPPY!!
This argument is only a “gotcha” if it was permissible use, but it wasn’t, even before CDs.
I have no idea how poorly the authors of the study communicated their work because I haven’t read the study.
Jumping to the conclusion that it’s junk because some news blogger wrote an awkward and confusing article about it isn’t fair at all. The press CONSISTENTLY writes absolute trash on the basis of scientific papers. That’s like, science reporting 101.
And, based on what you’re saying, this still sounds completely different. RNA sequencing may be a mechanism to “why”, but you would knock my fucking socks off if you could use RNA to predict the physical geometry of a fingerprint. If you could say we have a fingerprint, and we have some RNA, do they belong to the same person? That would be unbelievably massive.
Right, so this methodology is a completely different approach. I don’t think it’s fair to call snake oil on this specifically with the justification that other models (using an entirely different approach) were.
Again, not saying it’s real or not, I’m just saying that it’s appropriate to try new approaches to examine things we already THINK we know, and to be prepared to carefully and fairly evaluate new data that calls into question things we thought we knew. That’s just science.
I’m not in a place to actually help as I’m on vacation: but since it’s a compile issue, if you posted a minimally failing-to-compilr version (no credentials) of your full YAML someone could conceivably be able to troubleshoot it