I play Minecraft with my kids, but I don’t use a Microsoft account for it. Just PollyMC and host my own server.
I play Minecraft with my kids, but I don’t use a Microsoft account for it. Just PollyMC and host my own server.
If I download a pirated game it’s because I don’t intend to pay for it. It’s a choice between pirating and not playing it at all. Sometimes I like the game so much that I do end up buying a legit copy too, but that wouldn’t have happened if I didn’t get to play it first.
For Switch in particular it’s because I’m a PC gamer and can’t get used to playing games on console. I do own a Switch, but I find it inconvenient to use vs the PC. I played a lot more on the emulator than I did on the real thing.
Barnard b [2], as the newly discovered exoplanet is called, is twenty times closer to Barnard’s star than Mercury is to the Sun. It orbits its star in 3.15 Earth days and has a surface temperature around 125 °C. “Barnard b is one of the lowest-mass exoplanets known and one of the few known with a mass less than that of Earth. But the planet is too close to the host star, closer than the habitable zone,” explains González Hernández. “Even if the star is about 2500 degrees cooler than our Sun, it is too hot there to maintain liquid water on the surface.”
Xitter is simply short for “Elon Musk’s X, formerly known as Twitter, currently known as dumpster fire”
it looks like a twist at first glance, but isn’t.
It’s four twists
Reminds me of that scene from The Cube
It’s otter awareness week, so I guess it’s working.
If you’re talking about straight lines, then yes, that’s how you define a convex shape. If any uninterrupted path can be taken, then the OP shape does satisfy the condition.
Edit: just read the other comments and I see the problem was that you thought the internal angle shown for reference on how the shape was built is part of the shape. It’s not, just the thicker lines define the shape shown. The little crossmarks that show equal sides are also not part of the shape.
Make a large enough model, and it will seem like an intelligent being.
That was already true in previous paradigms. A non-fuzzy non-neural-network algorithm large and complex enough will seem like an intelligent being. But “large enough” is beyond our resources and processing time for each response would be too long.
And then you get into the Chinese room problem. Is there a difference between seems intelligent and is intelligent?
But the main difference between an actual intelligence and various algorithms, LLMs included, is that intelligence works on its own, it’s always thinking, it doesn’t only react to external prompts. You ask a question, you get an answer, but the question remains at the back of its mind, and it might come back to you 10min later and say you know, I’ve given it some more thought and I think it’s actually like this.
Then this shape does meet the definition
Remember to look into his eyes
I don’t know if it’s some neurodivergence or if other introverts feel the same way, but that is something I personally find very difficult and uncomfortable and I can’t hold eye contact for more than a second or two at a time. What feels natural to me is to look at a person’s mouth when they talk.
They are effective, but in the other direction. I wouldn’t be surprised if they’re funded by fossil fuel companies.
Somewhere on the vertical axis. 0 on the horizontal. The AGI angle is just to attract more funding. We are nowhere close to figuring out the first steps towards strong AI. LLMs can do impressive things and have their uses, but they have nothing to do with AGI
Review bombing is an intentional attack (e.g. someone posts a story about a shitty restaurant owner and everyone on the internet starts leaving negative reviews for that restaurant even though they’ve never been there). Just getting negative reviews organically for being bad is not review bombing.
That sounds like the definition for convex shape, not the general definition for a shape
I also disagree with the original comment you replied to. I was just responding to the part I quoted. I agree most specialists in a field don’t know how to explain things to non-specialists and I agree it’s important to have people who know how to explain things in layman terms, I jusy don’t think it’s relevant if those people are also the ones doing the research or not.
and that they’re not the people doing the research itself…
I don’t think that’s relevant. People like Stephen Hawking and Brian Greene have also done great at explaining science to the general public.
My company saved so much money by going fully remote. They were practically begging us to go fully remote years before the pandemic started, but there were too many people still attached to office culture (honestly I was one of them, I didn’t have enough space where I lived at the time for a dedicated office and I had toddlers running around and interrupting all the time). But as soon as lockdowns came, my company seized the moment and permanently closed our main office and half of our second office (they still kept a smaller office for visitors and for the occasional on-site meetings and events). The rent alone was in the $1m/year range, we got free breakfast and lunch, fully stocked snack cabinets, unlimited coffee, drinks on tap, etc. They don’t have to pay for any of that anymore.
I was looking for one of my favorite games from 1993. Not only is the developers website still up and you can still download the demo version and soundtrack from them, but I found some random guy rewrote the whole game in Javascript with WebGL and it can be played in a browser.