It happened to the Playstation, though not for use as workstations usually.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OtherOS
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PlayStation_3_cluster
Although Valve apparently already takes anti-scalping measures with the Steam Deck, so maybe it could work out in that way (as in, each steam account gets a limited number of purchases, TOS against trying to bypass that limit, etc).
I thought this was some sort of tier list of drugs at first. Like “which ones would are most important for a hospital to have”, and I was trying to work out the logic behind the colors.
For yuri authors that choose to list a gender the vast majority of them, 80%+, are women. While it varies by distributor the audience for yuri works is made up of close to 50/50% men and women.
Furthermore, if you look at the tag numbers on sites like MAL or mangagao you will find that yaoi manga outnumbers yuri manga by more than 5x:
Also, while its male audience has grown in the intervening years, yaoi originated as a genre primarily by and for women who were attracted to men. Bara is generally more written by gay men for gay men.
Philips Ultra Efficient bulbs use only 4 watts, and they have a glass bulb and metal base, so they might feel cool to the touch anyway. Or at least feel plausibly the same temperature as the room, depending on how hot it is in there.
deleted by creator
Made me want to post this one:
From the wording at the top it sounds like this was just for fun and probably ungraded.
I don’t even necessarily disagree, but I think that position is unfalsifiable because if the example is a highly popular program then “that doesn’t count because it’s big”, and if it has a small user base then “of course it’s small, it has a shitty name”.
Sort of
Today we differentiate between the physical substance (or category of substances that are the ethers) and the alchemical concept of the aether, but look at the etymology of “ether”.
The term “ethyl”, as in ethyl alcohol or ethanol, similarly traces its origins back to “ether”.
At the time these various “light” flammable easily evaporated substances were conflated with each other, and were thought to be this sorta mystical stuff that was the fifth element from which the 4 other ones were differentiated from. Since it was undifferentiated it was supposed to be “pure”, and free of the messiness of ordinary life (space was thought to be filled with it because of the “perfect” predictable movements of the heavenly bodies). This is also where we get the word “quintessential”, which literally means “fifth essence”, to mean a pure, perfect, and archetypical example of something, without complications. It’s also where we get the word “ethereal” to mean “otherworldly”, “light”, “ghostly”, etc.
It’s for similar reasons that we use the word “spirit” to mean both something that comes in a bottle and a disembodied soul. All sorts of alchemists from different areas and different times believed different things of course, but a lot of alchemical thought was based on the idea that everything had essences inside it which were hard to perceive or touch directly but which gave things their properties. In other words something’s essence is it’s spirit.
Of course what they called “spirits” or “essences” were really things like distillation products, gasses driven off by heating, and the colored flames that you get when you put some metals in fire. But that’s what they thought was going on.
I mean, the first one alludes to a pun, but just devolves into word salad in the second half. It’s also an intentionally shitty modification of this earlier version of the image:
And probably some other meme image too, given the subway food in the background and the blacked out impact font text. I’m not familiar with that one though.
Its pretty well known that “lines of code” is a horrible metric to judge programmers with. It seems “number of new projects” is pretty similar, though at a higher level of abstraction.
Unfortunately that metric is applied to a lot more than just programmers; and I think getting rid of it would involve completely restructuring the type of activity our society is oriented around, and would run up against the life philosophy of the people in charge.
Of course I’m not against progress, but I’m talking about executives that don’t plan beyond the next quarter, politicians that don’t plan beyond the next election cycle, the endless pursuit of growth, and the inability of market economies to cope with the fact that sometimes inaction is more advantagous than action. All of this encourages endlessly churning out ‘new’ things, without designing those things to last or putting in the effort to maintain them.
A better test would be to see how it compares to previous posts on his social media accounts from, say, around 2020.
The thing about this perspective is that I think its actually overly positive about LLMs, as it frames them as just the latest in a long line of automations.
Not all automations are created equal. For example, compare using a typewriter to using a text editor. Besides a few details about the ink ribbon and movement mechanisms you really haven’t lost much in the transition. This is despite the fact that the text editor can be highly automated with scripts and hot keys, allowing you to manipulate even thousands of pages of text at once in certain ways. Using a text editor certainly won’t make you forget how to write like using ChatGPT will.
I think the difference lies in the relationship between the person and the machine. To paraphrase Cathode Ray Dude, people who are good at using computers deduce the internal state of the machine, mirror (a subset of) that state as a mental model, and use that to plan out their actions to get the desired result. People that aren’t good at using computers generally don’t do this, and might not even know how you would start trying to.
For years ‘user friendly’ software design has catered to that second group, as they are both the largest contingent of users and the ones that needed the most help. To do this software vendors have generally done two things: try to move the necessary mental processes from the user’s brain into the computer and hide the computer’s internal state (so that its not implied that the user has to understand it, so that a user that doesn’t know what they’re doing won’t do something they’ll regret, etc). Unfortunately this drives that first group of people up the wall. Not only does hiding the internal state of the computer make it harder to deduce, every “smart” feature they add to try to move this mental process into the computer itself only makes the internal state more complex and harder to model.
Many people assume that if this is the way you think about software you are just an elistist gatekeeper, and you only want your group to be able to use computers. Or you might even be accused of ableism. But the real reason is what I described above, even if its not usually articulated in that way.
Now, I am of the opinion that the ‘mirroring the internal state’ method of thinking is the superior way to interact with machines, and the approach to user friendliness I described has actually done a lot of harm to our relationship with computers at a societal level. (This is an opinion I suspect many people here would agree with.) And yet that does not mean that I think computers should be difficult to use. Quite the opposite, I think that modern computers are too complicated, and that in an ideal world their internal states and abstractions would be much simpler and more elegant, but no less powerful. (Elaborating on that would make this comment even longer though.) Nor do I think that computers shouldn’t be accessible to people with different levels of ability. But just as a random person in a store shouldn’t grab a wheelchair user’s chair handles and start pushing them around, neither should Windows (for example) start changing your settings on updates without asking.
Anyway, all of this is to say that I think LLMs are basically the ultimate in that approach to ‘user friendliness’. They try to move more of your thought process into the machine than ever before, their internal state is more complex than ever before, and it is also more opaque than ever before. They also reflect certain values endemic to the corporate system that produced them: that the appearance of activity is more important than the correctness or efficacy of that activity. (That is, again, a whole other comment though.) The result is that they are extremely mind numbing, in the literal sense of the phrase.
I wish to know about the worship of rebranded TERF-slop.
If you’re a turtle or a sea cucumber maybe.
IIRC during covid they did experiment with liquid oxygen exchange through the intestinal wall for patients whose lungs were so wrecked normal ventilators weren’t sufficient. So you could maybe engage in some anal breathing if you were to get a super-oxygenated fluid enema, but its not something the unassisted human body can do. Or tries to do, for that matter.
I think Aleister Crowley believed something similar.
They might be generated for the purpose of creating adversarial images that appear relatively normal to a human but confuse AI image recognition. You can see an additional layer of weird patterns on top of them too.
IMO this is not a particularly annoying captcha though. I’ve had some where the text instructions are so indirect and strangely phrased that it’s not even clear what you’re supposed to do.
It would be necessary if you wanted a job in the Netherlands, no?
It appears that this quote is from this clickhole article.
In the transition from plugboards to programmed sequence control the thing that took over the task of routing values between registers, through the ALU, and to/from IO ports was the control unit. Microcode being one way to implement functionality in the control unit.
One other approach was to use what was basically a finite state machine, implemented physically in-circuit. The output of that FSM was fed into a series of logic gates along with the current instruction value, with the output of that combination being connected to the control lines of the various CPU elements. Thus the desired switching/routing behavior occured.
Modern chips are really complicated hybrids of microcode and a ton of interacting finite state machines. Especially in x86 complex or less commonly used instructions will be implemented in microcode, whereas simple/common instructions will be implemented by being “hardwired”, somewhat similar to the FSM technique described above (although probably more complicated).