enjoy your enjoyment of 'sound'.

as you get older (GOML) the sound of the sound matters so much less.

there were times that listening to a single speaker fm pocket 'transistor radio' was good enough to enjoy the songs.

have your fun with your rumble and explosions. as you get older, that shit becomes SO much less important, you wont believe how irrelevant all that hype really is.

I have not been to a theater in - 20 years? more? I cant remember.

its been unpleasant for decades. and with home theater, unless you're a teen trying to escape home and get 'privacy' somewhere else, theaters have long outlived their usefulness.

I think I stopped theaters around the time I cut the cable.

all around, what passes for entertainment is just plain rotten and/or boring.

you can keep it.

Sure one country can stop it! If we'd just nuke everybody we don't like, we'd have a nuclear winter instead.

No, it is for people whose concept of knowing things isn't limited to pretending.

You're decades too late to have rational doubts about the existence of global warming; that's true even if you're an idiot who knows nothing.

If you don't know anything... stfu about everything.

Why does Rice play Texas?
They choose to do these things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard; because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone.

Nothing. SpaceX is doing fine. Starship is ambitious. It is also being developed in a manner not suitable to the sensibilities of the Western aerospace commentariat. SpaceX performs many tests, analyzes many failures and refines designs accordingly. This produces great designs at low cost, in less time, and many dramatic RUDs. The Russians did the same. They performed many tests on initially flawed designs and fixed the flaws they discovered until they had confidence in their designs.

The traditional Western, big aerospace way, as we can clearly see with SLS is to take a decade or more and consumes oceans of money analyzing a paper design beyond any conceivable failure mode. This works, but it's extremely expensive, glacially slow, and suitable only for national superpower scale budgets funding cost plus contractors with little to no thought given to a feasible long term business model. That's why all their marquee designs are now historic, and the next one is still nascent, wildly over budget, years late and likely redundant.

So don't worry too much about the deep thoughts of our professional spectators. You can be absolutely certain that Musk doesn't.

You'd think Broadcom et al. would pitch a fit given the billions they've spent developing Wi-Fi standards that include 6 GHz, developing 6 GHz devices, etc. It's not just owners of existing equipment. It's an entire industry that has been investing in 6 GHz Wi-Fi for years now.

I am saying I have no patience for the drearily predictable "quality" and "safety" FUD. There are severe problems in healthcare. Bad enough to risk neglecting our worship of medical authority. Bad enough to risk suffering possible unknown failures as an alternative to our chronic known failures.

This presumes we have quality. Do you believe that, without doubt? I don't. I have a lifetime of anecdotal evidence of failures by doctors, personally and among family, friends and others. Without (hopefully) inviting a deluge of corroboration, I can assure you the people reading this now can bury us in such stories.

Beyond that, we are in desperate need of lower cost solutions for medicine. You're free to attribute the extreme costs we see however you wish, but finger pointing won't fix it: the powers and interests involved aren't listening. What is needed is a disruption, and this looks like a real possibility. I, at least, don't immediately dismiss it with AMA FUD.

Ok, but evolution requires selection as well as variation. Generally one should select several from each generation to modify, and filter out a bunch that don't measure up. (Note that the evaluation function is a very strong determinant of what you'll eventually get.) Selecting "one from each generation" just looks like an extremely bad approach. Perhaps it should read "one batch from each generation".

Show evidence of code theft, where these models are built with proprietary code that hasn't been liberally licensed and freely offered. Otherwise you're engaging in FUD.

A.) Zero ads: wading through prevailing search engines is a total shit show. I'm paying for LLM service, and I don't have to suffer that crap.
B.) Most examples are written by learners that are, themselves, ignorant of the sort of subtleties I mentioned. LLMs do better than that: they evaluate code and point out stuff that would otherwise be overlooked.

Great, now we have AI slop and Al slop in the same post.

And I just spilled my pill bottle into the merge window!

If a person is "crazy" or not is defined by dysfunction. Everybody has "some sort of physical neurological issue," that's what sentience is. Are you a rock? No? You have some sort of neurological issue.

If interacting with the tool causes a neurological issue to make the jump from not a source of dysfunction to being a source of dysfunction, then yes, it has made them crazy.

They would not be crazy but for use of the tool.

You're on a good line of thinking. Keep going. They can't filter it out. Why? Because the algorithm is a black box. When it pretends to "show its work," it's just making an additional output, a list of things in the form showing work.

That's the basic problem with "self-driving" based on generative AI: when the Department of Transportation tells them it is doing some specific thing wrong, or a Court rules the company has liability because an action it takes is negligent, there is no way to see into the algorithm and make a specific change. You have to retrain and hope. And when you've retrained, now all your past testing, all your past knowledge about how it acts in specific situations, is all wrong.

You can't filter anything out of the training except by limiting the training data to not include it. There are many who say that these tools would be better if they were only trained on curated data sets, but those tools are not capable of fooling the masses by sounding like a genuine idiot. So even if the perform better, they make vastly less money for the fad-kings.

Maybe they asked a chatbot if a was illegal?