people say this but I honestly have no idea what it means...isn't it just an online thing?
people say this but I honestly have no idea what it means...isn't it just an online thing?
On many large axes the correlation is backwards: political right, tolerate of abuse but not weirdos men, more tolerant of abuse, lesstolerant of weirdos religious, more tolerant of abuse, less tolerant of weirdos white, more tolerant of abuse, less tolerant of weirdos I think the premise is bad
"not be contaminated" is exactly as vague as anything you are complaining about
Susan Monarez and RFK Jr. both have opinions on vaccines, it's narcissism of small differences to criticize one instead of the other
Mail-in votes are not "low-propensity", they are largely high-propensity D-leaning voters who have been squeezed to the breaking point by other voting restrictions. The argument is bad on the merits.
Counterpoint: Procedural change - No more polling stations near elderly care homes Outcome: Decreased turnout of high-propensity voters relative to low-propensity voters this is just not true definitionally or otherwise
Looking back, my fascination with psychedelics in my mid-20s was probably due to reading "A Wrinkle In Time" books too much in elementary school
I mean Matt Darling last week was doing "anti-anti-DOGE" trolling (as a bit? unclear?) so I'm not surprised people were unkind
Dismal Science, Gay Cluster
Intelligence has several functioning instrumental definitions and operationalizations as inoerfect as they are, so I think it's a totally different ballgame
"When the lights are on and somebody's home" shouldn't compete handily with the most esoteric work in both phil and neuro but it sure does
I don't even think we have ever proposed an even slightly tenable definition for consciousness regardless of any specific edge cases
you're a mark, an idiot, or evil, which is it?
how is the much-needed DOGE project going, btw?
bitter about degenerate put losses, presumably
It was finance and banking as well, then healthcare. The 90s proposal is not really relevant as it never got anywhere close to off the ground. "Deporter-in-chief" was right before Trump! Obama did not "talk tough" on immigration before 2012 or against Romney. I get the feeling you're younger?
You're saying we should run back 2012, I'm saying we should try 2008
The timing is reversed? Obama ran v liberal against Hilary, as a strong liberal on finance and healthcare v McCain, and won several liberal policy battles. After thermostatic wipeout in the house, ran against Romney as a women-hating financier and won personally while blue dogs failed to recover
I think this also speaks to the solipsism of the D position. I'm not saying they should start calling themselves more moderate, I'm saying they should make fun of R's for all the many good reasons they should be mocked. You can define your opponent more than yourself.
I mean has that worked for Starmer? Did it work when D's tried to pivot right on immigration under Biden? Do you have good examples of an explicit rightward policy *shift* within-member that didn't backfire by increasing salience of an issue while also increasing popularity of the R position?
This was unironically my gay awakening (and first amv I ever saw lmao)
By saying "people 5 degrees either side of me are 'a problem'" and spending valuable attention litigating against them, we are not getting the highest leverage we could (which of course is not always the point of posting)
I don't it's an "inability/refusal to see degree" bc each degree *is* represented and of course you will rarely see yourself as perfectly aligned with the median degree of an entire site. I think a hyper-focus on fine degrees is of questionable use at best here (even though I have that tendency)
I hear this, and yet I was having the same conversation with Bari Weiss/theFP in Yglesias' place and Dave Rubin et al in Bari's place two years ago!
The only reason to do it is to build "credibility" but at a cost to your coalition. Similarly, there is almost no upside to talking to unreasonable opponents in private except with the goal of later publicizing the conversation. The right is much better at this than we are, to our detriment.
If your goal is to "change minds", talk to reasonable opponents (semi)-privately. If your goal is to "make them look bad", talk to unreasonable opponents publicly. There is extremely limited upside to advertising discussions with "reasonable" opponents in public and our addiction to it is bad.
To take away "D's need to *become* less liberal" when faced with independent voters whose perceptions track reality very loosely seems like the misstep Yglesias is making. If tracking is poor, shifts in the ground truth won't change perceptions much!
Not to get all stancily, but I think this speaks to how the parties and terms are painted in the culture. There is no institution independents trust that calls all R's "crazy conservatives" without exception nor has there been 50 years of building "conservative" to be a slur as with "lib".
Republicans and leftists have responsibilities, Democrats (defined by him) do not. It's just an equally bad twist on the NYT/Atlantic "Democrats and leftists have responsibilities while Republicans do not".
He wrote an article with a long intro about Agatha Christie abandoning antisemitism after visiting Israel. She never did and she never did, something I dug through her archival letters to confirm, and he ignores it while actively responding to every troll. Many such cases.
He's "dude Bari Weiss" in that he cares equally (0) about responding to reasonable disagreement and, in lieu of stamping out all unreasonable disagreement he sees on this website, he will find and nutpick it.
Avoiding the consciousness issue, I think this is a good way to steer users at least. Single refusual (while continuing regular function) is honestly a weird way to enforce user safety, and this seems like a good step up
This was a huge issue for me in SF! Thankfully NY has felt much safer at events
He replied to me on someone else's thread "HOW MANY TIMES SHOULD JEFFRIES ENDORSE? DAILY??" and when I said once would be amazing he blocked me (after calling me British(??))
Herbert A. Simon/Adorno vindicated once again. The attention derivatives market inflates faster than the underlying attention economy
Sunflowers 💛🧡💛
Sam Altman: I see humans achieving omnipotence using dark matter by… 2030 maybe? That’s if OpenAI is given a quadrillion dollars Theo Von: Yeah Altman: Or, we may become a race of slaves, genetically modified to be harvested by robot spiders. That’s if OpenAI doesn’t get the money Von: Right
google AI says ~sqrt(n) which feels right?
sorry to revive an old thread, but what distance d from the center of n independent unit Gaussians maximizes probability within the shell epsilon units from d as epsilon goes to zero? I think d aproaches infinity slowly as n->infinity but I think d is unbounded, right?
I am only at any notable risk to life from disability because I am now financially precarious due to two instances of being pushed out of a role after asking for a disability accommodation. That the state is now a relevant danger to me is directly because of the corporate bias played out by HR
if you think the situation for corporate HR reps is worse than for trans and disabled workers, I'm not sure we're gonna reach agree to disagree :(
I do hate HR as it exists administratively and in their operating philosophy due to personal discrimination, I'm not sure what you mean here
I mean yeah, that's why I started the first response to the OP pointing out that there are legitimate problems with HR administration, it's not just misogyny, which is a necessary precursor to, ok let's solve the problem we now both acknowledge together.
Yes, but you'd recognize "your hatred of the local colonial administrator is mostly racism" as a ridiculous thing to put primary in the sotuation, no?
I still think highlighting the misogyny against HR departments above and instead of the misogyny performed by HR departments is a cheap (and poor) way of demonstrating allyship
I've been at two startups through early growth stages (tens -> hundreds of employees) and you can time the departure of a huge chunk of the gender noncomforming, accommodation-requiring, and other outcast types to the month they hire their first "big tech" HR lead. It's everywhere and it's sickening
I mean yeah totally agree! It's just that eliding "sin eater department" as "power over people" in order to paint sin critics as mostly just misogynistic feels a type of way
not that there's nothing here, just unsure it's fully there yet
I think this is bad math because *per unit area* instead of per shell slice, the most density is still in the center. the surprise is that mass of a hypersphere is all in the outermost shell, nothing in particular about gaussians
my hatred of HR lies in how they systematically mislead disabled, queer, and other minority employees like me to prevent being targets of warranted discrimination suits but your thing sounds equally plausible
motes are small specks in one's eye, tankies breaking down (or significance in any politics) is a figment of your imagination, anything else unclear?
well im glad you changed your mind, but it's weird for someone who just came to jesus about an illgeal occupation to be doing bits about motes in a mostly imaginary enemy's eyes. honey your plank wound is bleeding
distinctions, differences, what are those anyway? you support an illegal occupation and have for years, that is what is relevant to the illegal occupation of Ukraine
don't u support israel tho? how is this not a big issue for u in particular?
eine kleine twinkmusik
what
It's training not runtime energy costs, this is almost certainly a distill or similar
Tony Hawk: Ace Combat
while evangelicals currently accept mainline protestant professions of faith as sufficient, that will not last, and it is poison to a free society that professions of Christian faith are so vital to electoral viability
It is just flatly correct to note that the necessity of demonstrating Christian faith in particular as part of being electorally viable is poison to a free society
We should defend secular government while firecely defending freedom of religion. It is not remotely ceding religious observance to do the first, particularly at a time when secular governance is hanging on by a thread
that is not something unique to this era!
real, if it was prot it would be presbyterian
my dad's hobby is cooking and he made every meal, which was very bad for my willingness to spend 5 min on pasta and call it a meal, but very good for my ability to host dinner parties at the drop of the hat that don't embarrass our household
Ds in 1970s: 12% non-Christian Ds in 2010s: 34% non-Christian Rs in 1970s: 7% non-Christian Rs in 2010s: 18% non-Christian On what basis are we supposed to believe that "growing non-religiosity on the right" is causing their psychotic behavior?
As we see Christians sort ever further into the Republican party while Democrats are finally breaking into being a non-religious-majoritarian party due to said sortition, it's stunning to hear people argue that it is the *non-religiosity on the right* that is causing this mass death and destruction
Trump's cabinet: like 20 or so Christians plus Stephen Miller and Elon Musk Christians on Bluesky: "Look what the non-religious people made us do!"
Tom Homan is Christian www.ncregister.com/news/tom-hom... Pete Hegseth is Christian Doug Burgum is Christian Kristi Noem is Christian
Marco Rubio is Christian Russell Vought is Christian Hillsdale is Christian Claremont is Christian
The invocation of prayer in public statements is very much part of the enforcement mechanism of this phenomenon
You're just doing no-true-Christian in a country where almost every politician is Christian for *waves hands* no particular reason
this is silly. Christians in both parties organize against non-Christian politicians
This is true whether the majority is white or Christian
If a 65% majority group organizes to deny political power to any minority members in both parties, and in one party is trying to implement a fascist version of rule-by-said-majority, I think it's ok for members of the minority to be annoyed, even if they aren't doing politically optimal messaging
In what world do we have a post-religious right? It's as religious as ever! It's in fact shocking how it has stayed this religious *despite* the rise of the total unaffiliated population www.pewresearch.org/politics/202...
I don't think y'all actually regret informing us. Christians inform us constantly and force every politician to publicly do the same whether they believe it or not
(ok i'll stop but thanks for sharing this is sick!)
"bird-norming" instead of batch norming so you can ensure each layer's output can be played as a birdsong and then we can hear the learning of each layer in the types of sounds it produces
VAEs but instead of Gaussian latents it uses "probouncible by starling" latent space" so your hidden layer is both compressed and naturally reproduced
Doing RLBF alignment steps based on which data birds do or do not recreate
If the argument is "Israel is so set on genocide that a constrained genocide was the best we could do", it would've been good to hear that from some of these people at the time!
If it is impossible to restrain a country from committing genocide it is good and proper to work to make it a pariah state, particularly when the population has a large interest in not being one and does still have some political ability to change the government. This doesn't justify the "bear hug".
my name is Peter Johnson and this is funny
the idea that "countless people explaining" something makes it generally available knowledge is equally wrong
has Israel ever offered such cooperation? or is there some other reason it would begin other than through pressure?
this is an unhinged response to people inaccurately believing monetary aid helps people in need
what is the relevant difference as far as boycott effectiveness goes?
But that's on the order of like, "OK, we're doing forward messages now" "OK backward messages time" back and forth a few times a second, not like "this came from x=20, y=-3 in the visual field"
I'm pretty sure fixed-ish oscillation frequencies (alpha, beta, whatnot) do (in theory) serve the purpose of addressability in the brain in the frequency band/functional connectivity literature, but I don't have a great source
this is neat, thanks!!
For more understood neural (not well understood) solutions to addressability, hippocampal conceptual-spatial maps are neat too (www.jneurosci.org/content/40/3...)
Some competitors/supplements to spatial just in case you want to read more are (in any combination): - Topological (spatial or functional, I think spatial topological models are silly tho) - Frequency/power spectrum-ish stuff - Functional connectivity kinds of things - Whatever Friston is on about
Is this still true in character rather than token models? Trying to figure out if it's more of a structural thing (always lowest layer least plastic) or if there's an early-semantic "mess" where layers must start accepting the previous layers' framing of the world
We fundamentally don't know anything about what the (necessary) "fixed-points" of concepts are. There must be some latent structure the concept is being "passed" around in a way that is de-constructable, but it just happens that location is not it and no competitors are clear frontrunners
ooooh, I had down/up mixed. That fits my (post hoc) intuition for hierarchical models in the sense that each layer is passing a code, if the code is changed a lot at the first telephone pass the ultimate output will be wrong-er
I had no idea about the in-silico result. Is this a result of backprop (downstream regions have fewer steps to propagate error) or something more fundamental?
Memory is where concepts are calcified so hippocampus would be the best bet for your idea to maybe work? thinking more
Very much the opposite in humans. Major percepts (vision/audio/touch/pain) are highly stereotyped and organized (although plasticity is used as part of processing in some cases), while conceptual regions have minimal localization with the "concept-holding" circuit changing many times per second
It would be more possible for different subjects to acquire localization due to a similar process (shared initial weights and noise-passing) than different parts of higher-order cortex to communicate this way
