Actually, I declined the interview. This was in the pandemic before the vaccine. During the phone screen the recruiter told me all work was required to be on site and asked if I was okay with that. I said: sure, but only if I have an office so I can set up an air filter and generally control my working environment. The recruiter said no one gets an office, not even Musk. I said thank you and goodbye.

The thing to understand is we're talking about sixth tenths of a degree warming since 1990, when averaged over *the entire globe* for the *entire year*. If the change were actually distributed that way -- evenly everywhere over the whole year -- nobody would notice any change whatsoever; there would be no natural system disruption. The temperature rise would be nearly impossible to detect against the natural background variation.

That's the thinking of people who point out that the weather outside their doors is unusually cool despite global warming. And if that was what climate change models actually predicted, they'd be right. But that's not what the models predict. They predict a patchwork of some places experiencing unusual heat while others experience unusual coolness, a patchwork that is constantly shifting over time. Only when you do the massive statistical work of averaging *everywhere, all the time* out over the course of the year does it manifest unambiguously as "warming".

In the short term -- over the course of the coming decade for example, -- it's less misleading to think of the troposphere becoming more *energetic*. When you consider six tenths of a degree increase across the roughly 10^18 kg of the troposphere, that is as vast, almost unthinkable amount of energy increase. Note that this also accompanied by a *cooling* of the stratosphere. Together these produce a a series of extreme weather events, both extreme heat *and* extreme cold, that aggregated into an average increase that's meaningless as a predictor of what any location experiences at any point in time.

No partitions. No walls. No doors. Just desks and chairs.

The complaint wasn't about being in the same physical location. It was about the compulsory open-office configuration, even back in the middle of the pandemic.

Correct. Even in the middle of the pandemic he demanded on-site work and would not allow private offices in the building.

NASA hired women as scientists and engineers when that wasn't a thing. If her talents were worth it, that was that.

Musk won't hire people unwilling to work in an open office. And forget about telework. It doesn't matter what skills you bring to the table, Musk having his way is more important.

That's how NASA landed people on the moon while SpaceX's rocket keeps blowing up.

Not just identical twins. If you haven't found pictures of your doppelgangers online, it's only because they're not famous enough and haven't committed any crimes. With 8 billion people on the planet, statistics demand that a lot of them look enough alike that a casual observer wouldn't be able to tell the difference.

Oh. You don't know how a search engine works. No wonder you don't know how copyright and computer software interacts.

You know what a search engine is, right? It takes all the words in a document and stores them in a database along with a link saying that this word was found in that document. The search engine has stored every word in the document, but it has done it in a way that it's not possible for the search engine to reproduce the document. The legal precedent is crystal clear that this activity does not violate the document's copyright.

Now you have a baseline for storing every word of a copyrighted book without violating its copyright.

When the LLM "trains" on a copyrighted book, how does it store the data? Has it saved the original data, in order, where it can spit it back out on command? Or like the search engine, has it stored relationships learned from the data which allow it to reason about the work but not reproduce it verbatim?

That's the correct question to ask when determining whether an LLM violates the copyrights of its training data. The plaintiffs failed to offer a credible answer to that question.

TOSLink's attenuation budget is something like 4dB. That's why even with glass at the proper diameter you can't get a TOSLink cable much longer than about 10 meters.

When the judge said the plaintiffs failed to litigate effectively, what he meant was this:

The defendant said that the LLM is not capable of reproducing the training materials. Instead, the information derived from them is able to summarize relationships, identify contained information, maybe even mimic the style of the book with new writings. In other words, it can do the things a normal human being can do after reading a book.

To prevail, the plaintiffs would have had to offer evidence that it was likely that the LLM stored sufficient data about the books to reproduce them exactly. If it can exactly reproduce the original works then it's not transformative, it's derivative.

The plaintiffs failed to offer any such evidence.

It's not just the high attenuation, you also suffer a high bit error rate as the optical signal interferes with itself. And that's when you move from 65 microns down to 9 microns. TOSLINK would be 1000 microns down to 9, two orders of magnitude more change in diameter and the square of that in area.

I expect not. TOSLink has a 1mm fiber core, not 9um. 100 times the diameter.

9um is for single-mode fiber which requires real lasers and has a transmission distance measured in kilometers.

Your local used computer store has color laser printers for under $200 with lots of life left on them.

Definitely do not get another inkjet. Inkjets are a total scam.

No one is stopping you from offering "proof" that the doctors prescribing what are mostly unpatented _generic_ medications are acting out of allegiance to some specific person or company in the pharmaceutical industry rather than endeavoring to solve the problem their patient presents them with. Go right ahead. Knock yourself out.