And this wasn’t just any but fuck man. It was the “perfect but fuck man I love”!

Make a comment with your conclusion and how you arrived at it.

If applicable, report the post.

I don’t think we were talking about the same thing. You’re talking about restricting your behaviour, “focus on your niche”, “stay away from propaganda media”. My proposal was to use an instance which makes it unecessary for you to restrict yourself to certain areas, if their moderation policy aligns with your default behaviour.

Of course it ultimately comes down to similar things, since instances which do not care wether you’re nice aren’t allowed in all places which require you to be nice. The key difference is still that you don’t have to be wary yourself. It sounded as if you would not like that.

I’ve seen it fairly often by now; many people seem to enjoy posts with moderately long comment sections. I believe this is what contributes to a more wholesome experience.

Similar to how groups meet a natural breaking point when they grow too big and people cannot know each other anymore, I imagine huge comment sections create a sense of being meaningless and unheard. This discourages sensitive voices, and may appeal more to people who don’t care anyways, which isn’t exactly a great attitude for social encounters.

I can further imagine large comment sections create FOMO for the reader, and can overall be more stressful, which leads to aggression.

Just guesses and impressions. No idea if true. Also no clue how to foster that environment in a growing network.

Agree to everything but the doom. Yes, most people will only give 1 chance to a platform, but we haven’t churned through most people yet. Most people are yet to honor Lemmy with their first visit, at some point in the future. We will be better prepared than ever. This wil be true for a long while. So I think we should make (reasonable) haste, but nothing is lost yet. In the long run, we’re still growing.

This place bans you for “not being nice”, which is an arbitrary metric that changes from mod to mod and let’s all be honest, being nice is exhausting.

Lemmy is many places (individual instances with individual moderation policies). If it’s important to you, you can find a server which matches your expectations, or host your own.

Right, thanks for the corrections.

In case of GAN, it’s stupidly simple why AI detection does not take off. It can only be half a cycle ahead (or behind), at any time.

Better AI detectors train better AI generators. So while technically for a brief moment in time the advantage exists, the gap is immediately closed again by the other side; they train in tandem.

This does not tell us anything about non-GAN though, I think. And most AI is not GAN, right?

As with other AI-enhanced jobs, that probably still means less jobs in the long run.

Now one artist can make more art in the same time, or produce different styles which previously had required different artists.

And this is why AI detector software is probably impossible.

What exactly is “this”?

Just about everything we make computers do is something we’re also capable of; slower, yes, and probably less accurately or with some other downside, but we can do it. We at least know how.

There are things computers can do better than humans, like memorizing, or precision (also both combined). For all the rest, while I agree in theory we could be on par, in practice it matters a lot that things happen in reality. There often is only a finite window to analyze and react and if you’re slower, it’s as good as if you knew nothing. Being good / being able to do something often means doing it in time.

We can’t program software or train neutral networks to do something that we have no idea how to do.

Machine learning does that. We don’t know how all these layers and neurons work, we could not build the network from scratch. We cannot engineer/build/create the correct weights, but we can approach them in training.

Also look at Generative Adversarial Networks (GANs). The adversarial part is literally to train a network to detect bad AI generated output, and tweak the generative part based on that error to produce better output, rinse and repeat. Note this by definition includes a (specific) AI detector software, it requires it to work.

Right? A self-assessed skill which is never tested is a funny thing anyways. It boils down to “I believe I’m good at it because I believe my belief is correct”. Which in itself is shady, but then there are also incentives that people rather believe to be good, and those who don’t probably rather don’t speak up that much. Personally, I believe people lack the competence to make statements like these with any significant meaning.

13 hours later, it seems it’s gone. At least I cannot access it.

Browsing the wikis, I got the impression research is unconclusive. We don’t know if he had a role regarding the theorem, and what it was.

There is debate whether the Pythagorean theorem was discovered once, or many times in many places, and the date of first discovery is uncertain, as is the date of the first proof. Historians of Mesopotamian mathematics have concluded that the Pythagorean rule was in widespread use during the Old Babylonian period (20th to 16th centuries BC), over a thousand years before Pythagoras was born.[68][69][70][71]

The German version also talks about the various roles Pythagoras might have had or not had regarding the theorem, and how research is unconclusive. One such possibility is that this older Clay Tablet applied the theorem without being able to prove it, and Pythagoras or one of his students could have found a proof.

Also:

The history of the theorem can be divided into four parts: knowledge of Pythagorean triples, knowledge of the relationship among the sides of a right triangle, knowledge of the relationships among adjacent angles, and proofs of the theorem within some deductive system.

So there were lots of meaningful steps one could achieve without actually deriving the theorem. Maybe people were happy to just use math because it works, and a thousand years later someone bothered to prove why.

A suitcase-sized, passive desalination device also sounds like a must-have for boats of all sizes, if they spend more than a few hours on sea.

Sounds like a great thing to include in your resume if you want them to hire you to keep working on it. Assuming theirs is better and succeeds.

What’s wrong with desalination research? Water is essential to life, and most water on Earth is salinated. The practical value of this research is apparent, both for ships on sea and coastal regions. So I don’t see how these attempts are “worthless”, and how it would be bad if they receive more “free money”.

The article talks about what could have been a challenge faced by the junkyard scrap model, and how they solved it:

Each stage contained an evaporator and a condenser that used heat from the sun to passively separate salt from incoming water. That design, which the team tested on the roof of an MIT building, efficiently converted the sun’s energy to evaporate water, which was then condensed into drinkable water. But the salt that was left over quickly accumulated as crystals that clogged the system after a few days. In a real-world setting, a user would have to place stages on a frequent basis, which would significantly increase the system’s overall cost.

In a follow-up effort, they devised a solution with a similar layered configuration, this time with an added feature that helped to circulate the incoming water as well as any leftover salt. While this design prevented salt from settling and accumulating on the device, it desalinated water at a relatively low rate.

In the latest iteration, the team believes it has landed on a design that achieves both a high water-production rate, and high salt rejection, meaning that the system can quickly and reliably produce drinking water for an extended period. The key to their new design is a combination of their two previous concepts: a multistage system of evaporators and condensers, that is also configured to boost the circulation of water — and salt — within each stage.

I’m not sure how much money is in desalination, but it’s certainly an industry. If a group comes up with a new method, and then nothing happens with it, it’s probably because it’s either not that great after all, or not that cost effective.

Maybe a problem is that the countries where it’s needed the most are not exactly the richest countries: https://ourworldindata.org/water-use-stress#what-share-of-freshwater-resources-do-we-use

several countries across the Middle East, North Africa & South Asia have extremely high levels of water stress. Many, such as Saudi Arabia, Egypt, United Arab Emirates, Syria, Pakistan, Libya have withdrawal rates well in excess of 100 percent — this means they are either extracting unsustainably from existing aquifer sources, or produce a large share of water from desalinisation.

I guess most see it as a bad thing. As waste, or resignation. But here’s the good story!

It can be a fruitful inner dialogue. While writing the comment, you engage with the topic, which changes your mind. That’s a healthy and good thing! If in the end, your result is “I’d rather not post that, because …”, then this reason is the insight you gained by writing that comment.

Sometimes I realize flaws in my reasoning this way. And I’m happy to catch them! Imagine if it was not asynchronous written conversation, but real time face to face.

Of course there are many reasons to delete a draft. If it’s mostly insecurity, I’d encourage people to give it a try. Experiences are what bring you forward, and if it’s only to learn what not to repeat in the future.

I almost deleted the last paragraph.

If Russia keeps this invasion up for another few years, they’ll run out of soldiers.

Both countries can probably sustain these high losses if they are only willing to keep committed. If we look at WW numbers.

Just a rough calculation: If Ukraine was to send 5% of their population to the front lines, they could lose 200k each year, for more than nine years. Russia obviously more.

Google’s dropping support so I have to get a new one or run a custom ROM.

Honestly, why? If it works for you now, why wouldn’t it work for you then?

People with poor education are poor at spotting idiotic bullshit. Also there are other factors why people believe things. We aren’t that rational.

Yeah, lemmy.ml and lemmygrad.ml ban people for posting dissenting comments. So their users can believe no dissenting opinions exist.

It’s a bid sad they cannot spot that the article, which is very short and written for children, does not say what they claim it says, but well.