Well shit, my bad, i somehow got the Guardian and the daily mail mixed up.
I still don't think it's editorial quality is great, but it's not a tabloid by any stretch.
~~The guardian is a tabloid rag with bigger words.~~
Easy answer is , they don't
Though that's just the one admitting to it.
A lightly more nuanced answer is , it probably depends, there's likely to be some inference made between age ranges but my guess is that it'd be sub-par given that it sometimes struggles with reproducing images it has a tonne of actual data for.
Are you judging the motivation purely based on the effects? Otherwise, how are you working out what goes on inside people’s heads?
A combination of the effects, the prior actions, reactions and consequences of the subject and others in similar categories/contexts (to the extent i actually know/pay attention).
I don't know of another way of performing predictive analysis.
Also that didn't answer the question.
I think given that we all agree that there are voters who think this will protect children makes it crazy to think that politicians must somehow know better. It is well-accepted online that politicians are out-of-touch when it comes to technology, so it’s not like they understand the subject of this article.
I'm genuinely not sure what you are saying here, but i'll go line by line, tell me if I'm reading it incorrectly.
I think given that we all agree that there are voters who think this will protect children makes it crazy to think that politicians must somehow know better.
I don't know what this means, there are voters who genuinely believe this, yes, i think i follow that bit.
I'm not sure what you think is crazy here (i'm not disagreeing, i just don't understand) , do you mean to say the politicians do or don't know better ?
It is well-accepted online that politicians are out-of-touch when it comes to technology, so it’s not like they understand the subject of this article.
This i agree with, i can also anecdotally add first hand experience of the consequences of such lack of understanding.
Not sure how it ties in to the other sentence though.
Ethics and morality aside.
Yes, they count, the process of making and continuing to update the underlying LLM is also what drains the lakes, they are all made on pirated info (all the big ones for sure, I've not heard of a widely available, usable model trained 100% on legally obtained data, but I suppose it could exist).
Aside from the existing deficit due to hundreds of years of systemic discrimination you mean?
I suspect more people than you think realise this is a potential outcome.
Assuming it boils over before there is another election (also assuming that's a thing that happens), military action is 100% a playable card.
It's a toddler with a nuclear tantrum button.
It's honestly not that much different in type than most nuclear powered nations.
The difference is "absolute last resort, and only maybe then" vs "they won't let me annex Greenland and are being mean to me"
Hyperbolic ofc, but illustrative.
What are the reasonable good alternatives though?
Easily provable lie, hope stated as fact, victory claimed on position never stated.
Come on guy it's like you aren't even trying anymore.
Still no immigrants, not even an LGBT ? Really?
lacklustre 2/10 shitpost, must try harder.
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-set-office-razor-thin-house-gop-majority/story?id=116274023
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/dec/03/donald-trump-historic-landslide-win-lie
https://www.politifact.com/article/2024/nov/22/how-big-was-donald-trumps-victory-8-charts-provide/
in fairness that last one did use the phrase "vast majority" to describe the number of counties that shifted to red, not the actual number of votes
I know i highlighted the difference between the two statements but i'm not expecting you to understand how statistics works or acknowledge the difference so don't strain yourself.
It could be argued that the some of the processes used to decaffeinate the beans can substantially change the flavour profile.
I don't have any studies to hand, but isn't the disparity between police responses to non-white vs white suspects a given at this point, in the US at least?
But lets look at your argument both ways.
On the one hand you'd be arguing that race disparity in police responses doesn't exist at all and so wouldn't apply here.
Or
Race disparity exists, but in this specific situation it doesn't apply for some reason.
If that's the case , id be interested in hearing why you think it doesn't apply in this specific circumstance?
Neither of those sound plausible to me but i could be missing what your actual argument is entirely, in which case, would you mind explaining why it doesn't fall in to the above categories?
Lots of practice.
For me it works like an elaborate pattern recognition tree.
e.g. This face in this context means x thing 75% of the time so far.
Then it's "strong opinions held weakly", you now have a working hypothesis but it's just that, a hypothesis.
Every facial/body/word/etc change could be a modifier to the previous assumption. You could also match some newly remembered memory to the situation that also changes the impression of what is going on.
It's exhausting, but it becomes easier with practice.
It's gets more refined the more you are around the same people, as you get a 'feel' for their patterns.
You also start to build up a library of 'shortcuts' that you can sometimes apply to unfamiliar situations/people.
At some point it starts to become 'muscle memory' and the energy required to do it is greatly reduced.
YMMV however, I've no idea if this will work for anyone else in the way I have described.
I'd also say to remember that everyone is guessing to some degree or another it's just that your guesses might require a bit more intention, whichever method (s) you settle on.
You do what you can with what you have, that is the best that can be reasonably expected of anyone.
The overview had no mention of a lack of support for "not transitioning" it's certainly possible I'm missing it or it's in the full report (which I'll read when I get a few minutes).
One mention of the need for corresponding levels of support for de-transitioning and some mentions of increased support for other issues alongside the gender based ones.
It sounds like OP had a specific section/sections in mind, if this is indeed the report they were referencing I'd appreciate some indication to which part they were referencing specifically.
"The overview didn't mention it, but its somewhere in this 232 page report" isn't the most useful when trying to understand where someone is coming from.
Senal
0 post score0 comment score
joined 3 years ago
Indeed, no scientific studies could ever benefit from a 40% increase in data from test subjects.
Not to mention they aren't even in the same environmental conditions, or doing the same activities, the data would be completely different (aside from the common baseline of space stuff) and therefore useless for comparison purposes.
I'm not sure why anyone would bother.
Look, i get why you might think it's unnecessary, i don't care enough to have an my own opinion on it's cost/benefit analysis.
All i was saying is that reasons do exist.