I would caution against using these numbers for any Calorie-in/out calculations. Even if they were 100% accurate, it still doesn’t take into account anything that happens outside of that machine.

Example: There’s something we call “non-exercise activity thermogenesis” (NEAT). This includes lots of things you do without thinking about it, like fidgeting, tapping your feet while sitting, or pacing around the room. In some people, NEAT can decrease significantly after exercise, which then negates much of the Calories burned.

Loot box and that gambling business aside, wouldn’t the FOMO argument also apply to the video game itself? If everyone around you is playing this game, you’ll be pressured into purchasing it yourself as well.

You don’t pay people because it’s the only motivator. You pay people because you need money to survive in this world. If we don’t, then the only people who can afford to spend time making mods are those who are already have their basic needs taken care of through other means.

I would like to see a world where anyone with the passion for modding can make mods.

Based on what I hear from my colleagues’ experiences, most of them still want to continue doing research, but there aren’t enough research jobs and funding available for all of them.

I can’t tell if you’re trying to say Alpine skiing is scary or that you’re into all the stuff people consider to be extreme sports.

My online persona is definitely different from IRL, and it differs IRL depending on who I’m interacting with. But these are all the real me. My ability to communicate via text is generally better than spoken, so that is reflected in how I write, what I write about, as well as how little I speak in person.

Secondly, in person communication has clearer continuity. If I have multiple conversations with a given person, I learn a bit about them and their communication style, allowing me to adjust how I speak to be better understood by that person. Online, I rarely remember who I’m talking to, so I just write in whatever way feels most natural to me.

The real time nature of in person communication also limits what you can bring up and when. Anything you say requires the other party to respond immediately, and if you recognize that they’re not in the mood to think particularly hard, then you don’t bring up difficult topics. Online conversations don’t come with this kind of information, but it does give you the flexibility to answer whenever you want, or not at all, so many things that I would not deem acceptable in an IRL setting can be acceptable online.

So in summary, different situations do call for different behaviours. But that’s not problematic any more than behaving differently at a party and at a funeral is problematic.

https://mander.xyz/post/19090429

Like this

If you’re blending it up into a powder anyway, wouldn’t it make more sense to add the paprika at the end? Does adding it before baking actually make a difference?

Ask yourself why you’re donating in the first place. Is it so that good journalism can continue to exist regardless of who gets to see it? Is it to give everyone access to good journalism regardless of their ability to pay? Is it so that the journalists can continue producing content for you to consume yourself? Maybe it’s something else?

If the company is no longer providing what you expect from them, then that’s a good reason to stop donating.

We’re assuming that you’re talking to someone who’s willing to have a discussion in good faith.

You’d first need to know why that isn’t a sufficiently solid answer. Are they looking for a perfect solution? Because I’m pretty sure there isn’t one. What we want is an improvement over the status quo, and sometimes an overall improvement necessitates a worse experience in certain areas.

Count yourself lucky. My front burner has become a secondary backburner and I’ve moved on to using a portable cooktop.

We’ve been doing this in RL research with Minecraft as well (see MineDojo). An excerpt from the GitHub page:

MineDojo […] provides open access to an internet-scale knowledge base of 730K YouTube videos, 7K Wiki pages, 340K Reddit posts.

Again, no one has run into legal issues with this yet either, but this also isn’t as ubiquitous compared to Atari, nor has it been around for as long.

Did you mean to respond to a different comment? I have no idea what happened in the VP debate.

The very first response I gave said you just have to reframe state.

And I said “am augmented state space would make it Markovian”. Is that not what you meant by reframing the state? If not, then apologies for the misunderstanding. I do my best, but I understand that falls short sometimes.

Reinforcement learning research has been using Atari games as standard benchmarks for over a decade now and no one has faced legal issues yet.

I’m not familiar with the term “beam” in the context of LLMs, so that’s not factored into my argument in any way. LLMs generate text based on the history of tokens generated thus far, not just the last token. That is by definition non-Markovian. You can argue that an augmented state space would make it Markovian, but you can say that about any stochastic process. Once you start doing that, both become mathematically equivalent. Thinking about this a bit more, I don’t think it really makes sense to talk about a process being Markovian or not without a wider context, so I’ll let this one go.

nitpick that makes communication worse

How many readers do you think know what “Markov” means? How many would know what “stochastic” or “random” means? I’m willing to bet that the former is a strict subset of the latter.

It’s in reference to your complaint about the imprecision of “stochastic process”. I’m not disagreeing that molecular diffusion is a stochastic process. I’m saying that if you want to use “Markov process” to describe a non-Markovian stochastic process, then you no longer have the precision you’re looking for and now molecular diffusion also falls under your new definition of Markov process.

That’s basically like saying that typical smartphones are square because it’s close enough to rectangle and rectangle is too vague of a term. The point of more specific terms is to narrow down the set of possibilities. If you use “square” to mean the set of rectangles, then you lose the ability to do that and now both words are equally vague.

Everyone’s weird in their own ways. It’s just that one of them is trying to convince people that weird is bad while simultaneously trying to court their votes.

Stochastic process