TwoPhonesOneKid

5 ms·

1.
by TwoPhonesOneKid 1y ago
I'm just pointing out you can get the same food with a quarter (at most) of the prep time and twice the flipping if you approach it experimentally at the same heat. Very much including basting. If you think steakhouses let steaks sit o
2.
by TwoPhonesOneKid 1y ago
I see this understanding that sql databases should do xyz by default as corporate dogmatism, kind of. A database is only as useful as it's used! I realize you haven't argued for this, but if we're collectively claiming postgr
3.
by TwoPhonesOneKid 1y ago
Too late to edit, but probability and statistics do emphatically rely on past-certainty. The entire concept of using the past to predict the future, however, is just a convenience with no reasonable basis. Please appropriately hedge your
4.
by TwoPhonesOneKid 1y ago
Gawker was a far more valuable institution than both of the above. I'm not sure how you could claim otherwise: both papers just regurgitate ap headlines with misanthropic assholes managing the editing. Gawker at least managed to break
5.
by TwoPhonesOneKid 1y ago
This theory has held up poorly to other theories, such as the federal legalization of abortion. Positing a single cause, even a single dominating cause, is an incredibly, incredibly hard claim to demonstrate. I do believe that unleading gas
6.
by TwoPhonesOneKid 1y ago
Meats don't really seal unless you're literally tarring them with char, and besides, juices leak from the side just fine. You really want to steam off the water content of a steak to get a better texture and fewer grease-runs. The
7.
by TwoPhonesOneKid 1y ago
Steaks being cooked naturally drain juice. The entire concept of searing a steak "sealing" the juices in implies a cooking paradigm that simply doesn't hold up to experimentation. You want to cook off water mass from a good
8.
by TwoPhonesOneKid 1y ago
Gawker still acted more mature in terms of the defamatory content than any given social network. This is as clear a case of revenge-murder as you can find. I just want to know who convinced Hulk Hogan anyone cares about him who doesn't
9.
by TwoPhonesOneKid 1y ago
Yea it turns out when you divorce politics from anything that matters it just becomes reality tv. Americans are too moronic to wield the power they claim today so it's hard to feel anything negative about this.
10.
by TwoPhonesOneKid 1y ago
Hulk Hogan also destroyed gawker because he was too cowardish to admit he's a sex freak. Obviously Peter Thiel was involved because he's too cowardish to admit he's gay, but the takeaway is that our society is run by toddlers
11.
by TwoPhonesOneKid 1y ago
You could also cross in a raft. Or on a log. You can swim across (riskily, quite riskily) at the straight of gibraltar itself. We've known humans have been seafaring tens of thousands of years before our earliest archaeological evidenc
12.
by TwoPhonesOneKid 1y ago
Typically the SQL engine will allow flexibility on this. Not all transactions need to prioritize write-to-disk confirmation over throughput. If you're collecting observability metrics, for instance, these don't have the same data
13.
by TwoPhonesOneKid 1y ago
Probablility and statistics are models that produce something we call certainty. This has no relation to actual certainty, aka knowledge. If you're making an abductive claim, you should state it as an abductive claim. Otherwise you&#x2
14.
by TwoPhonesOneKid 1y ago
Hume is deeply disappointed in you.
15.
by TwoPhonesOneKid 1y ago
This is an equally unsupportable claim, though. This requires enumeration of the entire state of the universe, an impossibility. This is just the standard swan problem ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_swan_theory ).
16.
by TwoPhonesOneKid 1y ago
That seems like the kind of behavior that would drastically vary from place to place and culture to culture. Just compare Rwanda with the DRC, for instance—neighboring countries with nearly polar-opposite reputation of how corruption is exp
17.
by TwoPhonesOneKid 1y ago
> Nobody sane is going to share all their personal data (about everything) with a fly-by-night random AI app/company. They absolutely will if the tech giants refuse to work with each others' data silos.
18.
by TwoPhonesOneKid 1y ago
That actually makes sense from the perspective of a state managing its labor force, though. That's just smart. "Diversity" for its own sake is just meaningless centrist bullshit.
19.
by TwoPhonesOneKid 1y ago
> no there aren't. there just aren't. You do realize we all know it's impossible to have any degree of certainty in asserting the non-existence of something, right?
20.
by TwoPhonesOneKid 2y ago
It's important to note that in the marxist/sociological tradition (doesn't really matter how actually marxist they are these days), "nation" refers to basically ethnicity. China itself claims to host 56 nations. In
21.
by TwoPhonesOneKid 2y ago
Yes. The more I look at it, the more I see the concept of general intelligence as a nonsensical one. What matters is how good you are at solving a given task. I don't think there's any good signal for general ability to solve task
22.
by TwoPhonesOneKid 2y ago
That's going to be difficult after such a public media campaign giving people the idea that they're trying to crash the economy. Even if this will also take a lot of industry-level incompetence to achieve.
23.
by TwoPhonesOneKid 2y ago
Their bases in this context is also one or two men, not voters.
24.
by TwoPhonesOneKid 2y ago
> Sharing things like this isn't very useful because it just causes further divides. I gave up trying to gentle parent other adults a long time ago. Newsrooms themselves have no fear publishing disingenuous and polarizing content.
25.
by TwoPhonesOneKid 2y ago
I would just chuck the idea of general intelligence out the window. It seems to give us nothing anyway.
26.
by TwoPhonesOneKid 2y ago
I would say it's even better: if flushes out the engineers who never bother to grasp what "science" actually referred to. you'd think empirical observation and iteration would be an easy to grasp concept, but there are i
27.
by TwoPhonesOneKid 2y ago
You can easily crush a person with a super computer. But what are you going to do with a slide rule—lightly tap someone?
28.
by TwoPhonesOneKid 2y ago
"Hallucinations" (ie a chatbot blatantly lying) have always struck me as a skill issue with bad prompting. Has this changed recently? to a skilled user of a model, the model won't just make shit up. Chatbots will of course an
29.
by TwoPhonesOneKid 2y ago
Yea but consulting the stock market for valuation seems like consulting a council of local morons what they think of someone. Any signal provoking such a drop would itself be many times more valuable, if it is indeed meaningful in the first
30.
by TwoPhonesOneKid 2y ago
I thought we were supposed to see AI managing costs reductions by now. Instead I just see chatbots and frantic PMs looking to prove their utility.

More ›