Maybe a helpful visualization is one of the precursors to quantum field theory, Dirac’s sea.

The idea is that you can think of a particle as sitting on top of the surface of the “sea” while an anti particle is represented by a hole in the surface, large enough to fit one particle. When a particle encounters such a hole, it naturally drops down into it and settles there. This essentially “destroys” both the particle and the hole (the anti particle).

So essentially the opposite charge, spin, etc of a particle and anti particle are a consequence of their opposition in their fields, not the cause for the annihilation.

(Not a scientist, grains of salt and all that).

deleted by creator

Yeah it’s crazy. To me, respect for the presidency keeping it crime-free. People committing crimes in pursuit of the presidency or while in its office should be harshly prosecuted, not let off.

That’s… the point? Civilizations with that kind of tendency may very well destroy their planet and/or themselves long before they advance to the point where they are detectable to an outside observer many light years away.

The human race is at the moment in a race against time. We’re hoping that we can develop new technology to save ourselves faster than we destroy everything around us. This kind of race has probably happened countless times across the vast universe and perhaps the laws of physics ultimately make the race unwinnable. These laws limit how much technology can do for any species, no matter how smart, so it would be a universal filter.

If the only way to win the race is to slow down the destruction of the environment to the point that the species is undetectable, that solves the Fermi paradox.

ITT: A bunch of people who have never heard of information theory suddenly have very strong feelings about it.

I’m guessing that 6-20 minutes is like the actual time spent driving screws or drilling holes. Each one takes maybe a few seconds. 6-20 minutes in that case translates to hundreds of screws driven, even on the low end. So not nearly as worthless as the time makes it sound.

Love that the picture associated with this article is Trump staring into the eclipse. Fucking moron.

If we’re in a simulation, it’s probably a massive universe-spanning one. We’re just a blip, both within the scale of the space of the universe and within the history of time of the universe. In that case, we’re not important enough for a simulation creator to even care to adjust our capabilities at all. They’re not watching us. We’re not the point of the simulation.

It’s not the free fall that I’m worried about. It’s what comes after.

Seconded, though I would advise getting the DLC after completing the main game.

I’ll tell you why I say the answer is no to whether or not the occult, demons, or ghosts exist. There’s a phenomenon in statistics where if you were to select a random element from an infinite set of equally probable elements, the probability that a specific element will be selected is 0%. Not close to 0, literally 0.

These kinds of supernatural phenomena that have no evidence belong to an infinite set of equally unlikely phenomena with no evidence. Their likelihood of being real is 0%. Only when phenomena has some tangible evidence explaining it can we elevate it to a finite set with a non-zero likelihood of being real.

Sorry but I’m going to call out what I see as some pretty blatant motte-and-bailey argumentation by the OP and their offense taken to people trying to nail down the definition of supernatural is illustrative.

They have their bailey, belief in things like the occult, ghosts, demons, etc, that are almost certainly bullshit. To the extent that they can be falsified, they have been. This is the typical definition of what people think when you say “supernatural” and people are right to answer “no” when asked if they believe in it.

But then you have OP falling back on their motte when this happens, taking a nebulous definition of supernatural and asking rhetorical philosophical questions about reality, perception, and the unknown. The fallacy is that these questions do nothing to strengthen or refute the original argument about the supernatural.

Nobody is here to argue that nothing is unknown and even unknowable but that doesn’t make the things that people typically call “supernatural” any less bullshit. Demons and ghosts are just not the kinds of things that are waiting around to surprise us. And shifting the conversation from your bailey to your motte to protect your feelings on the former is not a good way to have a friendly debate.

All that aside, if you are interested in expanding your understanding of the universe then I’d really encourage you to divert the effort you’re putting into the “supernatural” into learning about the actual natural universe instead. Our universe really is fantastic on its own. There’s plenty of interesting, wacky, and unknown things happening all around us that you can learn about without resorting to magic. If anything, magic is the boring answer imo.

When fully capable adults do stupid things, like voting for an man with as many very serious faults as Trump, I blame them for doing it. That Democrats were ineffective at convincing people (or inspiring them) not to do something stupid doesn’t make the thing any less stupid to do. Inspiration is not required to avoid being idiot.

They voted for a con man, a fascist, a criminal, someone who tried to steal the last election. Kamala could be a bowl of day old warm potato salad and voting for him would still be one of the dumbest things imaginable.

I have a son that’s learning to read right now so I’ve got some first hand experience on this. This article is making a lot out of the contextual clues part of the method but consistently downplays or ignores that phonics is still part of what the kids are taught. It’s a bit of a fallback, sure, but my son isn’t being taught to skip words when he can’t figure it out.

He’s bringing home the kinds of books mentioned in the article. The sentence structure is pretty repetitive and when he comes across a word he doesn’t know he tries to look at the picture to figure out what it is. Sometimes that works and he says the right word. Other times, like there’s a picture of a bear and the word is “cub” (but I don’t think my son knew what a bear cub was), he still falls back on “cuh uh buh” to figure it out.

So he still knows the relationship between letters and sounds. He just has some other tools in his belt as well. I can’t say I find that especially concerning.

It’s like the dumbest version of the trolley problem where the tracks are reversed. You could do nothing and people will die. Or you could pull the lever (convince a bunch of people not to vote for Harris) and a lot more people will die but, hey, at least you can say you did something.

… any more so than society could – or should – force them to serve as a human tissue bank or to give up a kidney for the benefit of another.

This fact is why abortion restrictions are unethical period. In no other situation do we allow the government to force a person to give up parts of their body to keep someone else alive, even their own child. But most people aren’t ready to hear that.

No mention of Gemini in their blog post on sge And their AI principles doc says

We acknowledge that large language models (LLMs) like those that power generative AI in Search have the potential to generate responses that seem to reflect opinions or emotions, since they have been trained on language that people use to reflect the human experience. We intentionally trained the models that power SGE to refrain from reflecting a persona. It is not designed to respond in the first person, for example, and we fine-tuned the model to provide objective, neutral responses that are corroborated with web results.

So a custom model.

It wasn’t Gemini, but the AI generated suggestions added to the top of Google search. But that AI was specifically trained to regurgitate and reference direct from websites, in an effort to minimize the amount of hallucinated answers.

a much stronger one would be to simply note all of the works with a Creative Commons “No Derivatives” license in the training data, since it is hard to argue that the model checkpoint isn’t derived from the training data.

Not really. First of all, creative commons strictly loosens the copyright restrictions on a work. The strongest license is actually no explicit license i.e. “All Rights Reserved.” No derivatives is already included under full, default, copyright.

Second, derivative has a pretty strict legal definition. It’s not enough to say that the derived work was created using a protected work, or even that the derived work couldn’t exist without the protected work. Some examples: create a word cloud of your favorite book, analyze the tone of news article to help you trade stocks, produce an image containing the most prominent color in every frame of a movie, or create a search index of the words found on all websites on the internet. All of that is absolutely allowed under even the strictest of copyright protections.

Statistical analysis of copyrighted materials, as in training AI, easily clears that same bar.