What a bizarre reaction to a completely standard marketing segment. Who does the author THINK is Monster Energy Drink's core customer?
Readit Newsdrc500free commented on I hacked Monster Energy bobdahacker.com/blog/mons... · Posted by u/speckx
Which part don't you understand?
The part where Gen-X is younger, maybe?
A “ferie”?
It makes solely due impost.
“The deeper I go, the less it seems to be useful. This happens quick for me.
Also, god forbid you're researching a complex and possibly controversial subject and you want it to find reputable sources or particularly academic ones.”
These things also apply to humans. A year or so ago I thought I’d finally learn more about the Israeli/Palestinians conflict. Turns out literally every source that was recommended to me by some reputable source was considered completely non-credible by another reputable one.
That said I’ve found ChatGPT to be quite good at math and programming and I can go pretty deep at both. I can definitely trip it into mistakes (eg it seems to use calculations to “intuit” its way around sometimes and you can find dev cases where the calls will lead it the wrong directions), but I also know enough to know how to keep it on rails.
Israel / Palestine is a collision between two internally valid and mutually exclusive worldviews. It's kind of a given that there will be two camps who consider the other non-reputable.
FWIW, the /r/AskHistorians booklist is pretty helpful.
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/books/middleeast...
Even a broken clock is right twice a day.
I don’t think agreeing with a neo-nazi about the foundational tenets of nazism is a good use of that idiom. It’s supposed to be for things like “pickles on pizza are actually pretty good” not “we are all slaves to the Jews who control society.”
"To know who rules over you, simply notice who you are not allowed to criticize" - UnknownThat’s not “unknown”, that’s an antisemitic quote from neo-nazi Kevin Alfred Strom.
Can you elaborate on the difference between your statement and the author's?
The wrong statement is saying P(no real effect) < 5%
The correct statement is saying P(saw these results | no real effect) < 5%
Consider two extremes, for the same 5% threshold:
1) All of their ideas for experiments are idiotic. Every single experiment is for something that simply would never work in real life. 5% of those experiments pass the threshold and 0% of them are valid ideas.
2) All of their ideas are brilliant. Every single experiment is for something that is a perfect way to capture user needs and get them to pay more money. 100% of those experiments pass the threshold and 100% of them are valid ideas.
(P scores don't actually tell you how many VALID experiments will fail, so let's just say they all pass).
This is so incredibly common in forensics that it's called the "prosecutor's fallacy."
In addition to being great artists, I also learned dynamic programming from this guy via his outstanding lectures: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tp4_UXaVyx8&list=PLJl4xQazDg...
It looks like there's a more recent series as well: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r4-cftqTcdI
I had him as a lecturer in undergrad, and I still remember the weightlessness of his intellect. It was one thing to realize that we were the same age, but his ability to flit around different concepts was remarkable.
There were a lot of people around who felt like high performance athletes of the mind, while he was just this sort of effortless butterfly going from flower to flower.
drc500free commented on The Creepy, Surprisingly Routine Business of Animal Cloning theatlantic.com/magazine/... · Posted by u/FinnLobsien
Is there a difference between a clone and an identical twin (other than sharing a womb)?
drc500free commented on Embeddings are underrated (2024) technicalwriting.dev/ml/e... · Posted by u/jxmorris12
> The 2D map analogy was a nice stepping stone for building intuition but now we need to cast it aside, because embeddings operate in hundreds or thousands of dimensions. It’s impossible for us lowly 3-dimensional creatures to visualize what “distance” looks like in 1000 dimensions. Also, we don’t know what each dimension represents, hence the section heading “Very weird multi-dimensional space”.5 One dimension might represent something close to color. The king - man + woman ≈ queen anecdote suggests that these models contain a dimension with some notion of gender. And so on. Well Dude, we just don’t know.
nit. This suggests that the model contains a direction with some notion of gender, not a dimension. Direction and dimension appear to be inextricably linked by definition, but with some handwavy maths, you find that the number of nearly orthogonal dimensions within n dimensional space is exponential with regards to n. This helps explain why spaces on the order of 1k dimensions can "fit" billions of concepts.
Is this because we can essentially treat each dimension like a binary digit, so we get 2^n directions we can encode? Or am I barking up totally the wrong tree?