Determinism for the same prompt means you can’t give it context through a conversation, which vastly shrinks its utility.

That said, even that form of determinism can be unreliable: the example of arithmetic still works; you could have it completely deterministic, but if it only performs correctly on 80% of arithmetic problems, it’s still unreliable.

Not really… Determinism would only help if you could copy someone else’s prompt and history 100%, which you generally would not be able to.

Because maybe it always gets 1+1 correct, but fails 1+2.

Water tastes give, but cola tastes better, as do a lot of flavoured things!

Truly idiotic, and will probably backfire because anyone can see there’s no risk to women. If you just had everyone take part in a single category, parkrun would be absolutely fine.

On a more detailed level, this seems like another body that thinks a ruling which says “organisations may choose to discriminate on the basis of sex in order to provide single-sex spaces for certain purposes” means “organisations must choose to so discriminate” which is unbelievably stupid. However, the media doesn’t seem to have understood that either so it’s no wonder.

Water that tastes fuckin well good? Sign me up

It’s only price fixing if they make an agreement, not if they just hit on the same strategy 🙃

And while it may suck, the reason its treated differently is because without any agreement it’s inherently unstable: another player can unilaterally decide to increase production, like China.

DRM is designed to prevent that, as I found out when trying to copy a CD that used securom

If you think of money as a proxy for human effort weighted by two important factors (how much people want that effort, and how easy it would be to get someone else to do the effort) then saving money amounts to saving effort.

Do “AI datacentres” actually exclusively run AI workloads, or are they generic datacentres where a bunch of the servers have GPUs?

what’s the difference between a datacentre and an AI datacentre

Probably true.

Note that your chart is from the IRS for the USA, not the UK.

But Labour also got to power with a promise not to touch most taxes because they were terrified that promising to do anything big would give the Tories what they needed to dupe the electorate once more. So they adopted a meek strategy to get into power. Then people got mad that they weren’t radical once in power.

And while I support higher top rates of tax, I think you need to be very careful in what you promise from them: there ways to avoid paying taxes that are very hard to fix, especially in a world where such rates are unusual, and the tax base for these high marginal rates becomes very small very quickly: HMRC statistics say there are 26,000 taxpayers earning over £1M. If we guess they earn on average £2M each, your 90% marginal tax nets about £23bn a year. That’s a big chunk of change, and would absolutely make a difference (assuming you can collect it all) but… it’s also less than 2% of the UK budget. It’s not going to “fix poverty” in the two years which Labour is being criticised for not having achieved it in.

I don’t see how? Labour got 34% of the vote, but has a massive parliamentary majority due to FPTP. That majority should translate into being able to do whatever the fuck they want for 5 years.

In all likelihood, a switch to a more proportional system, though very positive in the long run, would have a serious teething problem in a country like the UK where we’re not used to it: political parties would actually have to work together to get anything done. If we still have a prime minister, they would need to retain the confidence not just of their party’s MPs, but also of the other MPs in the (likely) coalition. In a country where politicians are used to just being able to have their way when in power, that seems likely to cause problems in the form of coalitions collapsing every five minutes.

This can be a problem in other countries with PR. It’s not a necessary feature of PR by any means (and FPTP is so awful that it’s also not a reasonable criticism of PR) but I think it’s more likely to happen in a young PR system than an established one.

His defence is that he’d already shown “proof of funds” for the house before receiving the gift. That’s a pretty thin defence given that it’s possible to know of the gift in advance.

But I think this is a distraction from the main point that his original defence of not declaring the gift is clear and utter bullshit: the rules are that gifts must be registered unless they “could not reasonably be thought by others to be related to membership of the house or to the member’s parliamentary or political activities". Personal security for someone in politics is clearly related to that person’s political activities. The fact that he wasn’t a candidate at the time of the gift is irrelevant to that relationship.

What astounds me is that I don’t really think Reform voters give a shit about piddly little things like dodgy gifts - that’s certainly what we see in the US, where Republicans think it’s great that Trump receives jets and contracts and god knows what because it shows “he’s a good businessman.” They don’t understand or believe or care that corruption impoverishes the country because decisions are taken for the personal interests of the ruler.

I don’t think the media, there or here, realises how big of a threat that is: they’re happy to report on blatant corruption as if the harms of corruption are still obvious to everyone, but they obviously are not.

Drive to each others places and don’t drink. You don’t need alcohol to have a good time with friends. Hang out online. Meet people who live in walking distance.

None of these options is perfect; we’d rather be able to meet exactly whom we want, and do exactly what we want when together. But the topic is socialising, not socialising in exactly the way we prefer.

Most of my friends don’t live in the same city as me, so it’s not easy for me either. But by one method and another I still have social contact.

As an external observer to this conversation, you’re not reading taking part in good faith. Try to understand the intention of their replies.

you can keep suckling the teet of your orange king pedophile and live “happily ever after” in your delusional little bubble till the collapse. As long as you feel loved by your king, all is well, right?

(And I guess I have to say I too hate trump because otherwise everyone will conclude I’m defending him somehow)

Learn to read.

It’s relative to the economy. What measure of “the economy”? and then they compare it to the ECONOMY in real time.

So you don’t know. I’m not an economist, but I clearly know more economics than you do.

This conversation is pointless; you had your chance to demonstrate you understood, multiple times, and you failed to do so. I see my original comment got downvoted in spite of the explicit caveat because you and three other people are incapable of understanding that “these numbers criticising Trump are bogus” does not mean “I love Trump”.

Goodbye.

What measure of “the economy”? The usual measure is GDP, measured in dollars, so the number is a dimensionless ratio, not a dollar amount.

The fact that you aren’t telling me how this number was arrived at, or giving any precise answers at all, is answer enough: it’s not “adjusted” to anything. You made that up and are continuing to talk shit.

I searched for “inflation”, “nominal” and “adjusted” and didn’t find anything relevant.

I believe that the $37 trillion dollars is the total debt whenever that graphic was made, and the $12.5T is the debt increase from Trump’s first term, plus so far in his second term. That means you’re comparing Trump’s debt (issued in 2016 or later dollars) to, for example, Roosevelt’s debt (issued in 1940s dollars).

The article you link seems perfectly factual and correctly identifies that debt to GDP is more important than nominal debt. Which is why you shouldn’t be using a comparison of nominal debt increases to criticise Trump.

They’re gonna be at least a bit waterproof. People wear glasses outside, remember.

Have a source of inspiration that doesn’t really on you yourself. I started taking part in some weekly art “challenge” thing where people share what they do. You can try to closely copy the inspiration, or use it loosely; use any medium and style, etc.

The reason this works well IMO is because:

1. it alleviates you the difficult job of coming up with ideas which excite you
2. you get to share your output with other people, see their ideas, learn from them, and support each other
3. you can judge yourself against specific goals you had for a given week’s inspiration/prompt, rather than against how well it lived up to your (probably unrealistic) imagination.