MemoryHoleHQ

If a masked person, that doesn't first identify themselves clearly as the police (which is difficult since, well, they are masked) breaks into my house, that's a lethal attack for sure.

What are you going to do after they enter the house (if they aren't indeed the police and you trust they won't kill or rape your family)?

We know it, because during the last 50 years, already adjusted to inflation the USA government budget increased by 2.48× per capita.

And unless your argument is that public services are 2.48x better now, then yes, I know that the problem is, as usual, that the government is taking workers money away to do as they please.

For the ones that didn't read the article, it says there. The problem is that the state takes more and more away from the workers wages:

"The biggest flaw: It uses gross income, not take-home pay

One of the biggest issues with the 30% rent rule is that it’s based on your gross income—not the amount of money that actually lands in your bank account on payday.

To illustrate this flaw, let’s use some real-world numbers. According to the latest FRED data, the median household income in the U.S. is about $84,000 per year, or roughly $7,000 per month before taxes.

Under the 30% rule, you could theoretically spend about $2,100 per month on rent if this is your income.

But let’s take a look at what your take-home pay could be with this salary. "

Yeah, it should really give you pause that people have to create new accounts here, to explain that we (and especially the state) shouldn't openly discriminate people on the basis of their gender, skin color and religion. Shouldn't it?

> "Do your own research" if you care to, or fuck off.

Oh yes, the false moralizing fake outrage trick. Very good. But now that we addressed your attempt at diverting the issue:

People in this thread are complaining about canceling DEI initiatives targeting the melanin levels of the researchers, not of the test subjects. In fact, the lengthily answer from the grandparent that you praise, says exactly that.

Sorry if it was too simple to call out your attempt at confusing the subject of the discussion.

Oh, if that's really your complaint about this all businesses, then yeah, let's all work together to clearly separate the DEI terms that apply to people and those that are actually scientific (like the diversity on crops someone mentions below).

Then we can more easily get rid of these discriminatory measures in practice (the real DEI ones) and keep the false flags.

Is that fine for you? Or that was just some red herring you were trying there?

Seems like you didn't read the thread properly, but who transformed this subthread into a discussion about DEI, was someone else.

Now, I know that people that defend these discriminatory practices love to put them all into tiny boxes and prevent any proper comparisons, but what can I tell you, I just the kind of person that doesn't change their principles based on the target.

So yeah, in a discussion about DEI, when someone complains that area A has too many "white men" and that's due to discrimination, it's completely valid to point you that when people with the same ideology tried to impose blind testing in area B, they ended up hiring even more of those, very awful, "white men" because it turn out they were the best ones for the job and where already being discriminated against.

It's called meritocracy. That's how society used to work: people applied and the best ones got the job.

BTW, blind tests did exacerbate this issue... so, far left ideologues started calling to end blind auditions since they ended up making orchestras "less diverse" instead of more: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/16/arts/music/blind-audition...

All of this seems awful. I don't understand if you are a scientist from your text.

If you are, you should be called by your institution on why you are spending your working time doing this instead of proper work. If you aren't, and just one of those people hired to write proposals, the institution should explain why they are spending money with you. Someone has some explanations do give here.

This reads like some ideological Op Piece, not a scientific proposal. None of this has any place in science.

> ensure student recruitment plans include underrepresented individuals

Discrimination. Recruitment plans need to include the best individuals applying for the job. I don't care what is their background.

> They will work closely with the recruitment and Diversity Equity and Inclusion (DEI) offices at their respective institution

Who is paying for this stuff? Why is there even a DEI office? Is this paid by taxpayer money?

> talent pool in climate change science

Oh. I get it now..

> peer-to-peer group mentoring program that allows early-career scientists to build skills and grow their network around common interests and objectives

Are we talking about scientific/work related common interests and objectives? If so, why do you need to pay someone to do that? These are adults, can't they do it themselves? If not, why is this even in the proposal? Again: Who is paying for this?

> Finally, they will ensure that the Post Docs are informed about how to report discrimination

Yet again, who is paying for this? This is a modern witch hunt.

Well, unfortunately, this is completely normal in science and it happened, basically forever.

Scientific projects, especially the massive ones, go through several cycles, and they get completely stopped or even canceled during their life, and then later, sometimes decades later, they do restart.

This happened with the LHC, ISS, James Webb telescope, the Hubble telescope, ITER, etc, etc, etc

Now, I know that in certain circles is very common these days, to go around pretending that the likes of many current decisions never happened until now and that whoever is governing the USA is doing something unheard of and absolutely terrible that nobody else would even think of. But it's not, this is something normal (I'm not saying it's good, but it is quite normal in science).

I've been thinking a lot about this and my personal take right now is that at some near-medium future the models abvailable to run at home and the hardware needed to use them will be enough.

My baseline is sonnet 4.6. I think it's good enough for most tasks sincerly. So, from what I see, we are already at a point where we don't need frontier models for serious coding and debuging. Give it a couple of years and that level will fit 120B models.

At the same time, we saw the rise of direct acess memory systems like DGX or Stryx Halo that will allow to run models of this size for "cheap" in the medium term.

That's what I'm betting in. That in 2 years I can buy a system for about $2500 that will run a model that's similar to Sonnet 4.6 locally.

I might be spectacularly wrong though. But I'm willing to wait and use subscriptions/API calls for now.

Strange, I reckon I installed Tahoe just a while ago and still didn't have a similar issue, but I remember on previous MacOS versions the error message for unotarized binaries, was to warn that there was indeed a security issue with the binary, not that it was simply "damaged".

A bit crappy on Apple's side.

Thank you.

macOS binary (mimocode-darwin-arm64.zip ) seems broken: "“mimo” is damaged and can’t be opened. You should move it to the Trash."

That massive EU investment in Poland, per capita, is way less than many other countries. But per capita is a problem around here, I know.

Just for clarity, here are the top 5 countries receiving the most from EU funds:

- Latvia

- Lithuania

- Estonia

- Croatia

- Hungary

Poland doesn't even make the top 5.

And right at the top of that editorial piece, it says:

"The opinions expressed in this editorial are the personal views of the authors (S.E. Kahn, C.A.M. Anderson, J.B. Buse, and E. Selvin) and do not represent those of the American Diabetes Association or the authors’ employers..."

So, the bottom of this seems to be that a journal was hijacked by editors who are interested in doing politics instead of research, used their power to publish political opinion pieces and have them show up with what is apparently the ADA stamp of approval (although the text has to state that's not really the case... but who reads the little text anyway?) and then, not being happy with all that, they still tried to hijack a research conference to do political stunts.

In my more than 20 years of research, I never, ever, saw anyone distributing scientific articles unrequested (most authors will gladly provide them on request, but surely not hand them out unrequested), much less anyone carrying around copies of opinion pieces to distribute unrequested.

Never. And that's the norm in a scientific conference.

They weren't handing a paper published in the journal (which implies some kind of scientific paper); they were handing an opinion piece titled :Misguided Brushes of a Pen Continue to Dismantle and Destroy Biomedical Research in the United States: We Can No Longer Afford Complacency and Fear. We Must All Act Now!

They were not handing an Article, they were handing an opinion piece titled :Misguided Brushes of a Pen Continue to Dismantle and Destroy Biomedical Research in the United States: We Can No Longer Afford Complacency and Fear. We Must All Act Now!

If they wanted to be political in a scientific conference, they could have done so by handing the opinion piece outside the venue at the entrance. Whoever wanted to get into their politics could do it, and whoever wanted to be left alone and be there for the science could do it as well.

It's extremely disrespectful to be pressuring the other people in the conference with their ideology.

It wasn't in any way an article, and much less an article about diabetes.

They were distributing an Opinion Piece which title was (yes, this is the full title): Misguided Brushes of a Pen Continue to Dismantle and Destroy Biomedical Research in the United States: We Can No Longer Afford Complacency and Fear. We Must All Act Now!