This is pretty much a duplicate reply so I’m just going to paste my response there:
It could be that but “(oh) yeah” and “yeah (and)” can both be shortened and used to disagree with someone. It read as defensive but honestly that’s basically what I did and really, the post is highlighting a shitty part of the world we all want to be better so I probably didn’t need my reply.
It could be that but “(oh) yeah” and “yeah (and)” can both be shortened and used to disagree with someone. It read as defensive but honestly that’s basically what I did and really, the post is highlighting a shitty part of the world we all want to be better so I probably didn’t need my reply.
How exactly am I disagreeing with that?
Yeah, great. Then include that
It seems like a pretty reasonable interpretation to me (but also uncertain from the information in the article), just an unreasonable omission of detail from the source
Wow I wish this was two questions. I’m pretty curious to see if there is anything detailed people have to say about the first paragraph but have little energy to skim through the answers to the second paragraph that seem to be dominating word count
for the killing of her abusive husband
A pretty big part to miss
I’m not saying that makes the situation just, just that it comes a long way in explaining the why
deleted by creator
I think the first part you wrote is a bit hard to parse but I think this is related:
I think the problematic part of most genAI use cases is validation at the end. If you’re doing something that has a large amount of exploration but a small amount of validation, like this, then it’s useful.
A friend was using it to learn the linux command line, that can be framed as having a single command at the end that you copy, paste and validate. That isn’t perfect because the explanation could still be off and it wouldn’t be validated but I think it’s still a better use case than most.
If you’re asking for the grand unifying theory of gravity then:
It’s an NBC news poll so I’m not sure it’s easy to find much more info on the poll or its history.
Here’s a chart showing previous responses:
Yeah, for me some of it is that I got more nuanced and forgot the places I used to be black and white / aim for a harsh burn. Not that I’m not still ignorant with plenty of black and what thinking.
And I think that besides people chasing upvotes, there is also more organising of movements online and by pushing issues into ethical framings that demonise the other side you create anger that keeps a movement going and can be directed but then large groups lose the ability to talk with nuance about that topic
Is it?
I think this is more confounded than “average” and I think that even in their turning point analysis they’re being excessively specific:
Yeah, agreed. It reads as if a bunch of computer scientists did some data analysis without statisticians or biologists.
Here’s the original paper:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-025-65974-8
They’ve taken a number of measured attributes:
All graph theory metrics were calculated using the Brain Connectivity Toolbox (BCT) in MATLAB 2020b38. Global measures included network density, modularity, global efficiency, characteristic path length, core/periphery structure, small-worldness, k-core, and s-core, while local measures utilized were degree, strength, local efficiency, clustering coefficient, betweenness centrality, and subgraph centrality.
Smoothed to fit a curve to the data:
In these models, cubic regression splines were used to smooth across age, and sex, atlas, and dataset were controlled for.
Reduced the dimensions using Uniform Manifold Approximation and Projection. Basically, if you have this data “height in inches”, “height in cm”, “weight in kg” it would ideally keep “weight” roughly the same but have a single “height” but you couldn’t rely on the units. They condense the input data down to four dimensions keeping age as the independent variable.
To project topological data into a manifold space, we used the UMAP package in Python version 3.7.335. Before data was put into the UMAP, it was first standardized using Sklearn’s StandardScalar
Then they created a polynomial fit for each dimension:
Polynomials were fit using the polyfit() function from the numpy package, which uses least squares error95. Together, these polynomials create the 3D line of best fit through the manifold space. For our main analysis, we fit 5-degree polynomials
Then they found the turning points and where they were are the ages. Here’s a plot and you can see even after all this cleanup the ages are noisy and it’s really surprising they’ve chosen ages as specific as they have:
I have no idea how they went back through to make up the summary for each “epoch” they identified. There’s obviously a lot of information for them to use here but it also seems like there could have been more creative license than ideal.
It really reads as an early idea that I don’t think should be pushed to the general public until other scientists have scrutinised it more (otherwise you end up with a whole lot of coffee is dangerous, coffee is healthy leading to people not trusting science)
With the US flip-flopping on NATO and the US ignoring basically all (trade) treaties earlier in the year, I think it’s foolish if South Korea doesn’t start researching nuclear weapons. The US and its guarantees are pretty worthless
Jakkaphong “Anne” Jakrajutatip was charged with fraud then released on bail in 2023. She failed to appear as required in a Bangkok court on Tuesday.
Jakkaphong and her company, JKN Global Group Public Co. Ltd., were sued for allegedly defrauding Raweewat Maschamadol in selling him the company’s corporate bonds in 2023. Raweewat says the investment caused him to lose 30 million baht ($930,362).
Financially troubled JKN defaulted on payments to investors beginning in 2023 and began debt rehabilitation procedures with the Central Bankruptcy Court in 2024. The company says it has debts totaling about 3 billion baht ($93 million).
JKN acquired the rights to the Miss Universe pageant from IMG Worldwide LLC in 2022
There’s more info in the article but for me the title just needed to say “for fraud” and I would have known I didn’t care enough to read it. I figure some others might be similar
Fuck the YouTube PMs
They were condescending on the bug with the fourth highest internal ratings that simply requested that shorts could be removed (particularly for children and for mental health). A particular gripe of some engineers was that it couldn’t be removed from the subscriptions page. I was impressed they removed the condescending comment after a month but they never really addressed the large volume of employees telling them this was the wrong thing to be doing
Thanks the taking the time. I always find it hard to follow up and point out the ambiguity / alternative without coming across in some unwelcome way
Pardons are only federal. This is federal but I’d be surprised if they hadn’t broken some state laws too. I’d be less surprised if nothing stuck
Have you ever tried writing a scrapper? I have for offline reference material. You’ll make a mistake like that a few times and know but there are sure to be other times you don’t notice. I usually only want a relatively small site (say a Khan Academy lesson which doesn’t save text offline, just videos) and put in a large delay between requests but I’ll still come back after thinking I have it down and it’s thrashed something
Are there any actions you can think of to push on this? It seems like it could help in this case and possibly also in others