• 0 Posts
  • 279 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: July 28th, 2023

help-circle
  • BluesF@lemmy.worldto196@lemmy.blahaj.zoneCenterists
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    25
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    edit-2
    12 hours ago

    I appreciate this, I really do, but you do have to be careful not to end up like certain leftist Reddit subs where I got banned for the heinous crime of suggesting that voting for Harris might produce better outcomes than voting for Trump. Some level of discussion that goes beyond what the majority (or, lbr, the mods) think has to be allowed or you just have an echo chamber.

    Granted, that isn’t what is happening in the comic. The apologist here is genuinely advocating tolerance of Nazis. This situation is appropriate.












  • Punch cards? Stored correctly there’s no reason they couldn’t last many human lifetimes. But… Yeah it’ll take a while to encode everything.

    I would have thought that with modern technology we could come up with something like punch cards but more space/time efficient. Physical storage of data - only one write cycle of course, but extremely durable. Even just the same system as punch cards but using tiny, tiny holes very close together on a roll of paper. Could be punched or read by a machine at high speed (compared to a regular punch card, presumably still Ber slow compared to flash media).







  • Your model is lacking in one area - poopy() has an inverse poopwash() where for some set of poopy objects Y, poopwash maps Y to a subset of the set of real world objects, but there exists a set of poopy objects Z for which poopwash maps Z to a subset of poopy objects.

    My initial instinct was to suggest that for all z in Z, keep(z) = false, however I believe your million dollar example runs counter to this. Nonetheless, I suspect there is a useful subset of Z, let’s say S, for which we can say, for all s in S, keep(s) = false.


  • It’s an interesting point. If I need to confirm that I’m right about something I will usually go to the internet, but I’m still at the behest of my reading comprehension skills. These are perfectly good, but the more arcane the topic, and the more obtuse the language used in whatever resource I consult, the more likely I am to make a mistake. The resource I choose also has a dramatic impact - e.g. if it’s the Daily Mail vs the Encyclopaedia Britannica. I might be able to identify bias, but I also might not, especially if it conforms to my own. We expect a lot of LLMs that we cannot reliably do ourselves.