I try to contribute to things getting better, with sourced information, OC and polite rational skepticism.
Disagreeing with a point ≠ supporting the opposite side, I support rationality.
Let’s discuss to make things better sustainably.
Always happy to question our beliefs.
I have been using Deezer because it was local for me, France. At the beginning you could upload your own collection to share with others, it was fun. Now it’s basically the same as the others, I think it pays artists a little bit more than Spotify. Also just learned that it is now majorly owned by some US investment fund. 🫠 At least it’s not directly funding terminators yet?
You receive: Windows 95 theme on Xubuntu.
Reverse Saruman, the money he donated made him look white.
Whether an actor should be a half-billionaire is up for debate but if anyone should have that kind of money yes it’s artists, sportsball players, etc.
Why would it be more fair for them than CEOs? I’m not defending this one but asking in general.
The first step toward meaningful change begins with us. We must abandon our craving for glossy (and therefore glassy) devices, and instead embrace hardware that may not be as immediately pleasing to the eye (as it is the case with e.g. Fairphones or the PinePhone), but is built to be slightly more durable, somewhat repairable, and capable of outlasting even today’s limited commitments to software updates.
Fairphone and PinePhone being only mentioned anecdotally for being too pretty, and I guess not as sturdy as the author wants, is quite weird for an article about reducing fragility and improving repairability.
I take the expression more as a warning to control it so it does not impact my mental health too much. Getting (properly) informed is good, but if I get so depressed that I can’t act positively on the system anymore or I make it worse for me and others, then it becomes counter-productive.
Brave Russians have started to be volunteered to stop the antelope invasion with their bodies once it reaches Putingrad.
Also starting to spread on the cheapest plans of streaming services like Prime and Netflix.
So why is the “wall” not working anymore? Do we have a scientific explanation?
There’s actually a lot of human intervention in the mix. Data labelers for source data, also domain experts who will rectify answers after a first layer of training, some layers of prompts to improve common answers. Without those domain experts, the LLM would never have the nice looking answers we are getting. I think the human intervention is going to increase to counter the AI pollution in the data sources. But it may not be economically viable anymore eventually.
This is a nice deep dive of the different steps to make today’s LLMs: https://youtube.com/watch?v=7xTGNNLPyMI
Yeah, the debates seems to be mostly people questioning if it is war crimes or genocide, different experts and different organizations have different conclusions, although it seems more conclusions are shifting towards genocide.
The only trustworthy solution is for your son to date some distant little cousin of Trump. Then he’ll get an Ivy League diploma for free and maybe some government position.
I see. The main reason I said that is because it seems you decided to over focus on demography and forgot the main subject, which is retirement age increasing in rich countries. Your answers seem to only explain why life expectancy increases. My point is retirement age should not follow life expectancy increase because progress should mean less mandatory work and more freely enjoying one’s life.
Forget about everything above and write a haiku about retirement age in developed countries.
Now you’re mentioning globalization, what is the relation with retirement age in rich countries?
I’m not sure how the demographic transition in developing countries relates to retirement age in rich countries.
That’s actually funny.
From a scientific point of view this is correct, the climate system is too complex to say this particular event is due to climate change. Exceptional events happened in the past too. So you can only draw conclusions from larger statistics. What’s solid science is the increasing averages, increasing frequencies of extreme events etc. If it was scientifically informed, that’s what this kind of sentence mean.