I think this is essentially a false dichotomy. It's possible to experience the loss of both of those eras, as well as the current one whenever it passes. There's no inherent conflict in wanting them all back.
That's not a contradiction, is it? Selective engagement and non-engagement are different things. It's reasonable for some individuals to be generally less sociable than others. That doesn't mean it's OK to explicitly exclude them.
Nobody expects the teacher to bring in candy, but it's kind of awful if they only bring it in for the students they like.
"Rule of law" is ideal, even for laws you don't agree with.
> Nobody expects the teacher to bring in candy, but it's kind of awful if they only bring it in for the students they like.
I hated teachers who insisted on treating everyone exactly the same. Ideal would be treating everyone according to their need. Which might mean candy for some, the freedom to set their own workload for others, understanding of chattiness for yet other, etc. Admittedly candy is fairly universal in terms of how it affects people.
> "Rule of law" is ideal, even for laws you don't agree with.
I'd rather have exceptions be able to made where appropriate. I'd see "rule of law" as a least-worst fallback where that can't be achieved.
This is such a huge downside with subscription services in general. The product itself can change right under your nose and there's nothing you can do about it but cancel. First I was paying to filter out content, now I'm paying for access? That's a totally different thing that I didn't agree to.
If you frame it in a different context it sounds ridiculous. "Actually we're getting out of the video streaming business and just mailing you postcards that we think look neat. Still charging you the same rate every month, though."
But there's nothing meaningful in the video. He just keeps reiterating how he thinks you should feel about the situation.
He clearly doesn't think it's worth his time to understand anything about LK-99, its history, or its popularity. It seems like most anybody that watched the fireworks show is more informed than he is. So what's the video about?
The same way he says "this isn't how science is done", you could say also say what he's doing isn't how peer review or journalism is done. What's not being addressed is that this kind of arrogance and appeal to authority is EXACTLY what flat-earthers and the lot are rebelling against, and the solution is not to put up more walls.
There are now potentially 10s or 100s of thousands of people who have seen how the sausage gets made, what kind of pitfalls there are, how measurements can lead to false conclusions, and mistakes can be made; and they're absolutely fascinated by it and want to learn how to do things better.
"An educated citizenry is a vital requisite for our survival as a free people."
This doesn't mean that every individual needs to be an expert in every field. You only have to know so much about a given field and the processes within it to develop a degree of confidence in your perspective on who you can trust, and extend that trust to the people they trust.
Mistrust in science is borne of ignorance, but not in the way that you think.
Yeah. I would argue that he displayed some bad science of his own. He kept harping on about how the LK-99 paper didn't show resistivity going down to exactly zero, but had a residual resistivity. But that is exactly what you would have seen with a mixed phase sample with some superconductor and some normal material. It took proper scientific detective work to distinguish the possibilities, not this kind of silly snark.
I didn't interpret his criticisms that way at all, and given that his criticisms with both the resistivity graph and the not-Meissner effect turned out to be exactly correct, I'd give him a bit more credit.
As someone who remembers the original cold fusion debacle well, this felt exactly the same to me: announce a result with a ton of unnecessary hype and fanfare (I mean, the closing sentence in the paper was just absurd in my opinion) without first trying to (a) at least call up some experts in superconductivity to get their opinion, or at least (b) write a paper with less of a "new era for humanity" tone. This smelled 100% of these researchers chasing glory without a modicum of introspection. I thought the most important part of the video is where the professor said that scientists are taught that when they get weird results, their first instinct should absolutely be to question it: what could have gone wrong? how could my experimental setup have been flawed? These researchers showed none of that appropriate skepticism.
The video is published merely 1 day ago, when the consensus that "LK-99 isn't it" had already been formed, and these points have been long discussed by other scientists and random people on Internet long time ago.
There is nothing newsworthy about these points; they're even borderline hindsight.
The smart thing to do isn't to remove it; They should charge for adversarial features.
Pay your fee, you get not only an attention boost, but the ability to un-boost blues. If the net result is 0, the Nash Equilibrium is that everybody pays.
Look how many people "#BlockTheBlue" on twitter right now. Just charge them to make it easy. The real value in someone who's willing to pay to be seen isn't in their 8$ subscription, it's in the 100 other people they incentivize to pay you to shut them up.
I mean, if they want to turn Twitter into SomethingAwful, that would be a good route.
Honestly at this point it's in such a bad state that it would be worth considering; a gamified war might be better than just every high-traffic tweet having hundreds of nonsense bluetick comments before you get to the real comments. It'd at least be more interesting; the bluetick content is usually just very dull, and tends to bring to mind the writing style of those wannabe-influencer posts you see on LinkedIn. (I think a lot of people paying for it are doing so because they want to be... a Twitter influencer? Are there even Twitter influencers, beyond dril?)
Probably not a _great_ way to build a sustainable business, though.
Give me the ability to set sliders to filter accounts and replies based on metrics like the number of their followers vs the number of people who have blocked them, and the number of their posts vs the number of their upvotes -- things that help me find the good stuff, and make it possible for me to access the "wisdom of the crowd" -- and I'd pay $20/mo.
Why does starting with ones' compliment make things easier? IMV, it makes it more confusing, because two's compliment seems like an arbitrary leap that happens to work.
If you're tasked with mapping a subset of bit-states to negative numbers, it's intuitively obvious that there's already a state that yields 0 when you add 1 to it, as long as you wrap on overflow. With four bits that's 1111. That's a great representation of -1.
If you want to get 0 by adding 2, you'd have to start from 1110, and so on.
Just because the top bit can be used to identify a negative number when you use up half the states, doesn't mean it should be thought of as a logical flag. That's how you invent ones' compliment.
I think of ones' compliment as a logical encoding, and two's compliment as an arithmetic encoding, and it shows in how easy negation is in ones' compliment, and how easy arithmetic is in two's compliment.
The fact that everyone tries to teach them as if one is a precursor to the other is what's confusing.
It's really, because it's were we came from. Early computers used ones' complement and there had to be extra circuitry to fix the -0 issue. Two's complement was explicitly introduced to fix this. – So how do you explain a fix without mentioning the bug?
Notably, ones' complement is easy to operate on, when reading values from blinkenlights or entering them via toggle switches, especially with octal grouping in triplets of bits. Which isn't that true for two's complement representation, as it is less intuitive (and digit positions shift with negative numbers). And the introduction of two's complement roughly coincides with operator consoles and switches becoming less important.
(It's true, if two's complement does work, you must be able to express and generalize this in terms of number theory, but this doesn't mean that it really stands on its own feet in terms of raison d'être.)
Regarding the sign-bit, this is an essential feature: checking the sign-bit for branching (or skipping) is the most basic approach to Turing complete computing. (Turing, the man himself, thought it is all there should be.) And it's also an essential bridge between numeric and logic computing, e.g., when we shift or rotate a bit vector to inspect the bit now in sign position.
There's also signed-magnitude, which Burroughs used.
Burroughs even had a unified floating point and integer representation. 48-bit floats had a sign, an exponent sign, an exponent, and a mantissa. The binary point was at the low end of the mantissa, and if both inputs had a zero exponent and the result could be represented with a zero exponent, it would be. No need for a float/integer distinction in programs.
lemmy.world, for whatever reason, absolutely guzzles CPU cycles. I can't imagine what it could possibly need to do that requires executing that much javascript. It's all minimized, so it's hard to follow in the profiler.
I can't wait for them to bring back the old related videos list. When is the last time you've heard someone use the term "youtube rabbit hole"? The effect is so lost, people who never experienced it don't even use the term wrongly to describe how things are now.
Having a traversable landscape of content is incredibly valuable. I think "search results as search criteria"/"traversal by adjacency" is the only real feasible way to organize the web, and the fact that we've moved away from that is the reason google search is often now useless. ChatGPT is valuable as a search replacement/amplifier because it reproduces that adjacency in a roundabout way.
If you want to know what kind of quality a given printer produces, good luck finding a picture on google. All you'll see is ad-infested, auto-generated top-n lists.
Applying the old youtube related model, you'd just have to find one picture to be a few degrees of separation from a picture of a print job from any printer ever manufactured.
The idea of objective universal ranking is a wash, and ranking based on N paramaters isn't much better.
The median persons rabbit hole was actually conspiracy theories, racism, and racist conspiracies. Just like TV, there's some amazing content, but there's also reality shows and guess what people watch the most.
1. Whose role is it to make judgements about whether people should be able to find certain kinds of content?
2. Do you think modern recommendation systems are better at keeping people away from that kind of content?
The thing is, as of now, if a recommendation algorithm identifies you as someone that responds to that kind of content, whether negatively or positively, it'll show you so much of it that you think it's the entire world. Even if you want to see something else, you have to have the discipline to "train the algorithm" over days, weeks or months to break free.
I feel that any suggestion things are better now is just impossible to believe.
>1. Whose role is it to make judgements about whether people should be able to find certain kinds of content?
Well for starters, there's the user. Once youtube decides you like a certain type of content that it wants to amplify, there is no "ok enough of this" button. You can't dismiss the categories it makes up for you.
And for enders, well your real question comes down to the question of if sufficiently effective psychological engineering contradicts, at least for some large fraction of people, personal agency. Suppose there was an adversarial patch we discovered that you could hide in a banner ad to make 15% of people read a completely different article than the one that is actually in front of them. That's may not be a highly efficient hack, but its more than the margins on nearly any election. How do we police these newly discovered neural-network hacks?
There's no question in my hypothetical on the matter of the victims personal agency in forming opinions and seeking information. I took care of that in the premise. They have no control, its a design flaw in the brain that is being exploited. But, where along the continuum of plausible technology does one draw the line between brains being hacked and people having agency in what they choose to see and believe?
Huh. Recommendation system is based around how much addicted you are. Therefore clickbait videos, or reaction videos will have better recommendation than a normal video.
The second goal is to make you slightly more angry, so that it is more probable that you will engage with the video.
The third is that you will watch more advertisements the more you watch. It is not in the best interest of the algorithm to give you answer right away.
It also does not have to be a bad will of YouTube/Google. After all you train neural networks to have desired outcome. The goal is to capture users attention.
> 1. Whose role is it to make judgements about whether people should be able to find certain kinds of content?
General public pressure that ultimately comes down to money (a.k.a: advertisers) which is controlled by general social pressure. With the previous rabbit hole effect, it's trivial for a reporter or an activist or anyone to record a 5 minute video where you start with a debate on a news channel or some very tame video about [Insert undesirable topic] then through 1 click on the top/next recommended video find yourself in an endless rabbit hole of full [Insert undesirable topic] videos. Then publicly call/shame those advertisers. Advertisers don't want associate their brand with that. If YouTube wants to be a bastion of free speech absolutism, that's their prerogative. Maybe it's good for their brand. We just want to sell Coca-cola or shoes or cars or whatever. To score brownie points with the public, we will pull our ads until YouTube gives us assurances that they are not promoting that [Insert undesirable topic].
Without the big advertisers, YouTube goes bankrupt in few months. Just like any traditional media company YouTube answers to their advertisers.
> 2. Do you think modern recommendation systems are better at keeping people away from that kind of content?
> The thing is, as of now, if a recommendation algorithm identifies you as someone that responds to that kind of content, whether negatively or positively, it'll show you so much of it that you think it's the entire world.
That's a false dichotomy. Recommendation systems are whatever we make them to be. For example, maybe a recommendation system that recommends you content based solely on *your* own preference + the current content you're consuming, is more likely to exhibit rabbit hole effect characteristics. One that takes the subject matter into account and evaluates it equally against some other criteria might have a different characteristics.
Ultimately it's a difficult problem to answer because it's a social problem, not a technical one. Just because you're a video or a social media or generative AI platform built on tech, doesn't absolve you from social responsibility if you're large enough to have wide spread social impact. That was the case with traditional media company. The fact that you're designing and creating algorithms and statistical models to recommend, promote, or generate content means you're on the hook for what those models produce.
Not just that but videos that were related for the wrong reasons, like being interesting to horny people. Recommendation engines get creepy if the “frequently used together” entries suggest inappropriate use.
If you used nothing but nails to build various styles of beds, you wouldn't have the same experience sleeping on them as the originals; Unless, of course, the original was a bed of nails.
Sharp edges are just one texture in an infinite range of textures, and AVIF looks like it constructs everything out of sharp edges in a way that's really obvious to the eye at all compression levels.
With JPEG XL I can at least tell what's missing, or too artifacted to make out. With AVIF you have no idea what has been completely erased.
I feel like this is Conway's Law at play. People would create high quality paid apps if the users that want to pay for them could find them, but if somebody makes something that's perfect for you, how do you discover that it even exists? The organizational structure of the web is the problem.
Google and social media platforms have shaped the web to be entirely advertisement driven. If they were capable of showing you things you wanted to buy, without the creators paying to be seen, they'd never make any money.
Almost anything you ever want to do, someone else has already done well, but despite that, it's hard to find snippets of code you can include in your projects. It's easier to just write it all yourself. If the usefulness of ChatGPT is an indicator of anything, it should be an indicator of how much is out there that you never get to see. The sad part is realizing that that's intentional.
