It was a bit unclear to me how stable this was to adjusting the course. Did they set up the course in a blind fashion?

With a lot of ML it boils down to how well the training set represents the situation.

…are you serious?

There would be so much data in understanding people’s light usage. For example, you could figure out how late or early people get up, number of people living in a house, how crowded the house is, how many lights are used per room, etc etc. it would be a gold mine of information.

Let’s say you’re a home automaton designer. You want to design devices to be used in the home, but in order to design such devices, you need enough of a stockpile of user data. This lightbulb data would be incredible valuable.

You can probably even analyse the data and determine things like whether someone is watching tv late at night.

From a nefarious view, how valuable would this data be to robbers and thieves?

These things are interesting for two reasons (to me).

The first is that it seems utterly unsurprising that these inconsistencies exist. These are language models. People seem to fall easily into the trap in believing them to have any kind of “programming” on logic.

The second is just how unscientific NN or ML is. This is why it’s hard to study ML as a science. The original paper referenced doesn’t really explain the issue or explain how to fix it because there’s not much you can do to explain ML(see their second paragraph in the discussion). It’s not like the derivation of a formula where you point to one component of the formula as say “this is where you go wrong”.

There was a prophetic podcast episode from the series Plain English a while back that I constantly think about.

In that episode the author describes how the internet is going through a revolution.

Basically 20 years ago, the internet was all about gaining numbers. Companies could operate at a loss if they got people signed up. Facebook, Google, YouTube, Uber, Deliveroo, etc. they were all about getting you in their mailing list or consumer list and who cares what happens then.

Now there’s an issue because that model is not profitable. In order to continue, all the internet is moving towards subscription.

In a sense, I don’t think of that as intrinsically bad. Patreon is a good example. The internet is now filled up with so much shit that people are willing to pay to filter it. So with Patreon, you pay a fee to support an artist to produce the content you want. That itself isn’t a bad idea.

Now that being said, a lot of “bad things” do emerge. The fact that you can no longer buy software like Adobe and it’s all subscription based. That’s shit. But that also inspired software alternatives like Affinity Designer.

Hmmm. If abuse happens, is the right idea to say that “I don’t need this community”?

I’m not sure how that HackerNews comment helps in the slightest. If my university has an obscure basket weaving community and people are getting abused in that community, should I just say “Eh we don’t actually need a basket weaving community”.

It’s also amusing to me that a commenter on a relatively obscure and niche website is complaining that that don’t need (or care about abuse that transpired on) a niche community from another website. And then this comment is echoed in yet another niche community.

I think people really missed my point, and thought I was somehow arguing in favour of poor working conditions.

My point was that the Lemmy response that “well why doesn’t the boss do this?” is not the right negotiation tactic.

The right negotiation tactic is, for example, to argue that it’s in the benefit of the company and society to improve working conditions. For example, you argue that by allowing remote working, you are encouraging not only a happier and more productive environment, but you are widening access and better able to recruit the top people.

There are lots of ways to argue for better conditions. The reaction of “well the boss doesn’t do it so I won’t either” is not a great tactic. If the boss does put in crazy hours, where does that leave your negotiation stance?

As much as I love these arguments, they don’t solve anything and can make things a lot worse.

A lot of companies have bosses who are putting in significant hours. They sometimes do this because they have the income and familial situation to support it. Sometimes the bosses have no families, or have nannies, or are not the main caretaker. Sometimes they just have “no life”.

Japan is a good example. Incredibly long working hours and incredibly work-centric culture at all levels.

The way to argue better working conditions isn’t to point fingers at other people and ask “well why aren’t they also having to suffer like me?”.

That’s like asking why, if you’re a programmer why you don’t just work for another company on your day off.

NBA players are professionals. They’re paid to play in the NBA season. They get plenty of tailored Xs and Os in their season and post season. They probably all need permission from their teams or stipulations on their contract that they can compete in the off season. If they get hurt, they (and their team) stand to lose millions of dollars.

For players with families and significant ones as well, they’re already away from their families for extended periods.

I’m not trying to be patronising but we do have to think of them as professionals. Not high school ballers who are grateful for any chance to touch the ball. The situation is slightly different for players who are playing for their country or for Olympic pride, etc.

I didn’t communicate myself so well. I’m imagining a situation where the knot needs to be under pressure to bind the two pieces together. I’m not experienced with bowlines but it doesn’t allow me to do tighten by cinching (does that make sense?)

I kind of both enjoy and detest that site. A lot of the time I just want to know the best general knot for a general situation—not a million knots I’ll never use where I have to click and read about each one.

Like for instance, if I need a loop at the end of a cord, a bowline is a good knot.

What about if I need a knot that allows me to take a rope around a pole? Like a hitch.

It would be nice to have a single website just giving the top 5 knots you need to cover 90% of the situations.

I just noticed this.

As others have mentioned the stars have been largely useless in the last little while so to be honest I’m not sure this has any impact. Even sites that try and give a rating based on fake reviews are not helpful because so many reviews are faked. The only helpful part is to try and read negative reviews.

I imagine this star fiasco is something that’s easy for browser plugins to reverse.

I would love to see AI and Machine Learning used to filter out fake reviews. This would actually be useful.

I love it. It’s funny, satiric, absurd. The man or family was very obviously aware this was absurd and did it anyways. He did it also for his kids and for a fun experience.

It’s the opposite of the kind of criticism you would level at McMansions, which is that they’re cheap displays of wealth that are excessive.

It reminds me of the shark in Oxford https://www.headington.org.uk/shark/

Eh. Not the best article but I appreciate the sentiment.

I certainly agree with it. I think that there’s a level of friendship that I never allow others to crack unless they were bridged in as members when we were young.

All the people I meet now are “acquaintances”. They’re nice, I’m okay to reach out if I need anything, but more often then not they’re the partner of someone else. I smile at them. I tolerate them. I might even have a drink with them. But there’s a distance there that you can’t crack.

It’s like that great 80s movie, “Stand by me”: “I never had any friends later on like the ones when I was twelve. Jesus, does anyone?” https://youtu.be/l7r-R61W1DQ

Women also make up 50% of PC video game players and 54 percent of mobile game players.

I find a lot of these figures really hard to believe, to be honest.

Looking at the link, there is little I can find about their methodology.

I haven’t read the replies but there was a very interesting episode by Derek Thomson’s Plain English podcast which I found incredibly interesting.

Derek made the conjecture that we were on a cusp of a big paradigm shift in the Internet.

For the last 20 years, it was essentially about building a consumer basis. So companies like Netflix and Facebook and Amazon did not care about current profits. The point was to just get consumers, drive out the competition, and commandeer the monopoly.

Now and especially post Covid companies like Twitter are realising that this isn’t going to work. The next movement is going to all be about paying models. This is what we’re seeing with Twitter. This is what we’re seeing with OnlyFans or Patreon.

So in light of the above comments, none of this is surprising. The next era will be about paid models of the internet.

I need to find that episode as it was extremely prophetic. It might have potentially been this one https://open.spotify.com/episode/2zRha9y46btKdAfwfHpvQ5?si=_jkP3iX7TXOesHLsoY9Vxw

My goodness. No video?

Amazing work.

One of the biggest issues I had with BI4L was how annoying US-Centric it was. I’m not sure how you can address this issue in the Wiki but you should be aware it does reek of American arrogance :)

I guess at a minimum maybe make some kind of tag or filter for the country?

Is there some intention to eventually open editing up to others? I assume you don’t want to maintain this kind of list to perpetuity.