Re: Y oh Y
> Much like Windows 11, then?
You mean X11, Shirley.
63 publicly visible posts • joined 2 Nov 2012
This gets to a question I had about this whole GPT craze (and applies to similar systems too). Even if we disregard quality issues, if these networks are trained with data from the www, and more and more text found on that www is actually GPT output -- how will they prevent training on its own emissions? What would happen if they don't? It seems to me that it would be useful if these generated artefacts had some sort of watermark so that they can be recognised as such.
> Trendy shiny shiny hipster smartphone on one side
> Slave Labour Pain Machine on the other...
I don't disagree -- but at the same time I have no illusions about the other brands being any better... Next time I'm up for a new device I'm looking into FairPhone. Anyone tried that?
> Dude, get the dogma right. It's climate change, NOT global warming! That whole CAGW thing wasn't panning out, so the Green priesthood rebranded it so as not to look so much like fools.
Dude, again? This was pointed out to you before, but as you apparently insist on repeating this tripe: that particular bit of newspeak came from *Republican* operators:
"Kinda like avoiding words "Global Warming" in favor of "Climate Change."
Oh, thanks BJ -- What a perfect example of exactly the kind of dim-witted deflection Kieren was talking about.
That was a *Republican* sleight of words, from this particularly slimy (even for GOP) character:
> You may think it's great that these Nazis are being blocked by private companies from having a web presence, but you would sing a different tune were some group you support to be treated that way.
And yet I think it's a pretty safe bet that you were completely fine with that bigoted bakery (private business) refusing to service gay customers? You can't have it both ways, in fact that's exactly what you're accusing others of here.
> No matter what Trump says, he will be attacked. Seriously.
I seem to remember the same thing happening with conservatives v Obama.
Pretty sure it was actually a lot more out of proportion back then, given that the current POTUS is pandering to actual fucking nazis -- as opposed to, say, trying to provide basic healthcare for all citizens like literally every properly developed nation.
> If the Republicans acted this poorly to Obama, he would have played the race card.
They did. And he didn't.
> Granted Trump is like a dull tool that kinda gets the job done
What has he done, precisely? As far as I can tell, this administration has passed very little in the way of new legislation. Or, famously, even much repeal of previous legislation.
The only reason that there's any good news still in the economic stats is they're so unbelievably incompetent that they haven't been able to actually undo much of the progress made under Obama (who inherited the economic meltdown overseen by Bush Jr, although to be fair the reasons for it go back through Clinton, Bush Sr and Reagan.)
Where did this term come from all of a sudden? Could it be the right-wing media decided that "anti-fascist" sounds too much like they might be the good guys? Obviously they want us to consider them the baddies, but I see how that'd require some sleight of hand, since the other side are, you know, actual fucking nazis.
Another meme I've found interesting, equating BLM with the white supremacists. You'll notice that they are not proposing to make the US a black-only nation or even to take away civil rights for all but the black. It's not a black-supremacy organization and so the equivalence, as they say, is false.
Knock it off, will you? The sheets are showing.
So... Your logic goes: if [this were true], then [outcome I like], therefore [this is true].
That's not a reasonable argument. Your corollary is worse still: people don't like it when I say this, therefore I'm right.
I have no idea if there's anything more to Seth Rich's death than officials say. Very well might be, I certainly have very little faith in DNC or the travesty known as US law enforcement.
But it's not an either/or scenario. To claim that the moron in the White House and his campaign/staff did not collude with Russia at this point is, respectfully, completely bonkers.
"You'd think raising the wage would be an easy vote on both sides of the aisle, but the corporate lobby wants H1B wages as low as possible."
Which makes it an impossible vote on both sides of the aisle. Neither party represents the people these days, they're only listening to donors. There's an interesting Princeton study that found essentially that the US is no longer a functioning democracy:
"Short version : it's fucked by corporate interests.
You can say that about most of the American judicial system as well."
And politics, diplomacy, military, healthcare, education, media/journalism. Even religion. This has been true for decades, but at this point it's basically a failed state in many ways.
I'm not holding my breath for a revolution, but the rest of the planet can damn well stop following their "lead".
Yeah, maybe I'd taken that seriously if Gore had managed to win his home state. Or handled the Florida mess better.
This argument against third parties was completely wrong in 2000, and makes even less sense this time around because there are now two third party candidates in the spotlight and they look to be siphoning votes off both major parties.
I personally think that is the only way the US can ever be a proper democracy -- instead of the duopoly it is now, where actually the major parties somehow manage to agree exactly on the issues where the general public doesn't -- is to have viable alternatives for both of them in the same cycle.
And actually, I think this article (uncharacteristically for El Reg) is a bit of a hatchet job.
Dr Stein is in no way, shape or form an anti-vaxxer in the sense that that McCarthy woman is, say. She has worries about the committees that regulate and approve vaccinations -- which seems like valid concern in a country where corporate lobbyists have their finger in every single pie. But that is a far cry from suggesting it causes autism or whatnot.
Likewise, I just took her statement about WiFi to underline her broader argument that "It would be better for kids' development to not spend all their time looking at screens". Obviously ubiquitous WiFi would tend to increase that slice of kid's time. The fact that she points out again, correctly, that regulators and public safety committees are stacked by corporate interests, is hardly the same as believing WiFi melts brains.
The article starts with an observation that, certainly compared to earlier editions, the current election cycle has many Americans looking beyond the two major parties. Maybe do them, and everyone else, a favour and not blindly assume that all third party politicians are fringe lunatics.
"For instance, British politics seems insanely complicated. We have nothing like this."
What makes you say that? There's a similar shortage in different parties, and none of the madness with delegates, super-delegates, meta-delegates and whatnot.
Check out John Oliver's rant, and see if you still feel the UK is the complicated way to do it.
I don't know the first thing about space-based solar -- but it seems to me there is no shortage of Earth surface area available for solar panels (Sahara, Gobi, fly-over US, you get the idea). Also, given the cost (and fuel consumption) of lifting stuff into space, would take quite some time to offset. What am I missing?