uoaei

It is a band-aid: dark matter maps are literally nothing more than "evidence minus theory equals this distribution of anomaly".

Maybe there is, maybe there isn't. Maybe it's an un-acknowledged aspect of physics that we haven't properly discovered yet.

Assuming it's definitely matter, and operating on that basis for nearly 50 years, is not good science, period.

There are plenty of alternatives to link to X content without hitting X's servers.

Sure, but that's not the messaging around this. The "flying car" narrative is simply incorrect.

It's not flying, it's brief hops that probably will be geofenced not to be operable on any public roads. I struggle to understand when the operator of the vehicle will ever find a way to use it for any end that isn't "gross negligence followed by totaling the car". It's not even clear it can calculate trajectories in real time to be used at the operator's discretion.

I mean, it's obvious, no? LLMs operate exclusively on language, and language is an especially poor way to represent geometry, let alone geography to any useful resolution.

Well, no. Your statement is isomorphic to "might makes right".

Power determines rationalization. Justification is a moral question.

Yes, it is their responsibility as stewards of their citizens' data. What point are you making with the word "should"?

The IRC channel we hung out on was moved to Discord and he didn't follow.

This guy was an internet friend of mine, claimed to be mentored by one of the Negativland guys, and definitely carries the flame with his weekly(-ish) releases. They used to play hella late night Thursdays on KPFA, not sure if that's still going. Give it a listen!

https://nationalcynical.bandcamp.com/

I'm confused by a lot of this discourse...

What have they done to show they can be trusted?

The Intercept is not far-left, they are Blob-aligned via Pierre Omidyar.

Reading this meter you linked from AllSides, it appears that the main purpose of that meter is to enforce the boundaries of the Overton window using faux-objectivity as a cover.

If Trump dies, Vance becomes president. If Vance dies, Mike Johnson becomes president. What do you know about those people that I don't that convinces you the hammer will come down once Trump is dead?

Dialects degenerate phonemes that would otherwise occupy identity relations between different utterances of the same "word" (word/concept mutable hyperobject as is the standard in any socially-relevant spoken language) which would be a bit of irony in this thought experiment since common knowledge dictates that more data samples must be present in the dataset (not less, as in rarely-spoken languages) to associate separate pronunciations of utterances representing the same underlying concept. However very-rarely-spoken languages probably don't have distinct dialects since so much focus is put on mutual intelligibility with the few members of the group that remain fluent in that language. It's not outside the realm of possibility that small speaking communities nonetheless fractionate into dialectical specialities but that seems increasingly unlikely as the fervor for preserving/recognizing dying languages increases, and global instant communication continues to become more commonplace.

Example: Schwabisch is wild and would be phonetically transcribed very differently from Hochdeutsch which is its ostensible language progenitor (technically more a cousin than an ancestor in the lineage of language evolution), but if the goal is merely to focus the model purely on phonetic transcription then you can add additional post-processing layers which map sounds to core concepts shared across dialects for actual translation. But I like your idea of interacting with the intermediate elements to familiarize yourself at least with the phonetic patterns, we humans are still thinkers enough to infer patterns of grammar and semantics from these building blocks just as we have done for the entire history of the species/lineage before written representations of language came along (relatively late -- evidence of script cropped up only once civilization had centralized to a sufficient degree to make economics non-local and non-trivial).

tl;dr the big words: it's not til you collect enough spoken samples of the dead(ish/dying) language being spoken that the local idiosyncracies are discovered, luckily linguists are smart enough to probably anticipate and certainly post-process language snippets to grasp the common structures for this or that given language.

Approximate solutions are good enough, but approximate solutions are not part of the solution space for the kinds of problems covered by OP.

No free lunch theorem has nothing to say about approximate solutions, so I'm really not sure what you're going on about.

OR-tools is almost exclusively linear programming which according to its strict assumptions converges more or less trivially, assuming a correctly composed program.

Which means if you're paying for it "as a service" you all but deserve to lose that money.

> Different algorithms are better for different problems

So... why does your rhetorical style have such oppositional tone if you're just going to reaffirm the no free lunch theorem?

*sigh* We really need to teach this new crop the term "no free lunch". Again.

The thing is, there are never only two options.

Multiple things can be bad for different qualitative reasons.

How about the broad anecdotal consensus that Duolingo, a gamified language app, famously does not do much if anything to prepare people for conversational fluency.

That's also grammar that's fit to get you harangued and chided by other 4-9 year olds on the schoolyard. Social outcomes are the primary means by which language is meaningful.

English is uniquely riddled with exceptions to rules linguistically. Teaching inflexibly only makes students flex around you.

Perfect grammar is less important than comprehensible semantics for all but the most niche linguistic applications.

Earnings represented by GDP are not distributed evenly across a given population. That 17% of extra earnings goes to relatively few people in the States (I'm putting this very mildly, the concentration in reality is insanely lopsided).

All of the optimism surrounding this industry hinges on "ifs" that never materialize.

That's what makes it a model, not a law.

You're playing party politics. That's the risk you take: that the party has goals beyond your (dareisay naive) utopian ideals for civic engagement.

Parties are not universally evil, when I malign them in this way it is in full acknowlegment that organization is the nearly singular path to "effect on target" as regards society-scale politics. What I mean is the party per se becomes a superorganism that has always as its first priority self-preservation (a la homeostasis) and it is very worth remembering this when subsuming oneself into their structure.

No, it's not a law in the same way as physical laws. Most of the failures in economics of the past 50 years can be mostly directly attributed to a fatal overcommitment to the belief that these attributed relations are incontrivertible.

What really exists, closest to the limit we will call "hard science" or "physics", is the microcosmic focus on individuals interacting in a market. Everything else -- supply and demand as a theory definitely included -- is a statistical extrapolation from micro-scale interactions. Hence the label of "dismal science". It's dismal because every hardline assumption is inevitably contravened by real life physics.

Supply and demand is and always has been a useful first-order approximation. Reality is a lot more complicated.

Dear reader, never believe anyone who says a serious societal problem is "just" anything. Especially on the internet when they use merely a pesudonym to assert their authority.

Especially when the person behind the pseudonym is a one-time washed-out author desperately clinging to their housing stock in Atherton.