Snowbird3999

The lack of advertisements, popups, cookie consent, propogandist language and fluffy content makes for such a pleasant reading experience.

It's a real pity that this is not more common with modern websites, especially in the "recipe" or "news" domains. I am grateful for Wikipedia however.

A lot of hullabalou from a company that hasn't shipped one useful and profitable product that some group of customers simply cannot live without.

Most AGI roadmaps IMO are a form of virtue signaling about how important and smart the authors are with little regard to reality.

Unrelated to ChatGPT, fact checking seems like a great exercise for schools to teach modern tech literacy. Imagine doing this with a tweet, a random anecdote, a video clip, etc.

What sources to use? What search engines to use? How do you distinguish or balance information found via a conspiracy theory website vs. a well funded "think tank" vs. something more academic?! I would love to learn this myself.

Their methods are heavily based on hybrid planning, model-predictive-control, and trajectory optimization which have many parallels to popular ML methodologies [1].

Boston Dynamics problem is not "inaccessibility of robot hardware" or that "they have to adopt more ML methods"... There are more expensive machines in the world that are wildly profitable. Their problem is that it is very very hard to make a business case for humanoid or quadrupedal robots that is not better solved by more standard automation systems that (for example) don't have to be charged every 30 minutes or have to climb up and down the stairs.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EGABAx52GKI

What works for me is learning a single concept in many different ways. A textbook, a youtube video, a friend explaining it to me... Each next source of material (however casual or formal it is) is more likely make the concept "click", or allow me to understand the concept more efficiently.

To that extent, this blog post seems valuable to me. The author is using a language and colors to convey an intuition that I have not precisely seen before.

Despite errors in the statements made by the LLMs, I'm a huge fan of this syntax which has inline references. Seem like a great bridge between LLMs being "statistical babble" and a useful knowledge-retrieval tool.

Curious whether the references themselves could be wrong? Or how they would be generated to (for example) prioritize primary sources over secondary sources.

Is this true even if you account for the fact that cities can reclaim lanes and buildings dedicated for parking?

I would think that a lot of congestion is related cars having to be parked near a specific venue such as a restaurant or an arena (especially in the latter case where there is a gathering of 1000+ people).

I used to be a fan, but these days I feel like there is little to no innovation in the top ranked apples anymore. Not to mention, does SweeTango even have USB-C?!

[deleted]

Yes the latter. Its not a tesla, nor is it particularly nice / flashy. Not that 4 broken windows would be justified either way.

FWIW my car's been broken into 4 times over the last 2 years in oakland! Hasn't happened since I started leaving the rear seats down, but probably just a matter of time.

What I desperately want at this point in time:

A button next to every ad that says "why me?" that details every byte of my data scraped to generate that specific ad. Was it a GPS location from an hour ago? Did you scan through my photos? Did you figure something out from my youtube watch history? TELL ME!

Slightly off topic, but I happened to have recently completed google's DEI training as an onboarding googler and was appalled at one of the anecdotes used as an example of inclusion:

"Someone suggested sharing baby pictures across our team. A googler said that wouldnt be inclusive because googlers might not have photos from childhood or not want to share them."

Isn't this incredibly backwards? A culture where co-workers are being encouraged to self-censor sharing baby photos because someone might be offended is not very healthy IMO.