Actually Genuine Ignorance

Why did you mention git twice?

It wasn’t supposed to be the revolution, it was sold like it was.

As a revolution, it relies on infinite applicability of Moore’s law to storage medium. In other words, it relies on infinite growth. It never left the square one.

If the average user

Proceeds to describe a task average users never perform.

And no, you having been a smart child doesn’t excuse you being an obtuse adult.

It’s all about being comfortable with not knowing when you need to act. Believing that you can learn everything upfront is pure hubris, and once you hurt yourself enough times, you just drop the pretense.

In other words, life is Bayesian, not frequentist.

It’s not about business optimization, it’s about not having to defer to someone’s knowledge from the position of power.

AI bubble makes so much sense when you start looking at it this way.

Good point.

Gl.iNet is a great value router, but if you want to do anything really interesting, it won’t do.

I have Slate AX chugging along, and have been eyeing teklager boxes to do actual routing, with slate as an access point.

Could?

As an aside, idealistic free market is impossible to achieve without regulation. At the very least, contracts need to be enforced. Free market also demands price forming to happen through bids on the market, needing protection from extra-market negotiations. As an elastic system, it can also be broken by a concerted application of force and needs protection from such actions.

Whatever is being sold as free market sounds like a myth at best.

PS: Coop corporations should really become the norm. Trickle up systems create concentrations of power by design, and concentration of power is how you stretch elastic system beyond its deformation limits.

“Permaban” is the word you’re looking for.

Same weird non-sequiturs chain that foobar2000 author uses.

They could’ve honestly said “I don’t wanna”, and that would be the end of it.

There are penalties. They require proof of intent, however. So there are no penalties.

Bilingualism is a bit overloaded nowadays, which I find kinda annoying given that word “polyglot” exists.

Anyways, if you can freely use another language in an informal exchange with a few people of different sobriety levels while failing to remember key words and recovering from that - you’re a fluent polyglot. Ability to exchange information is a key part of what language is, and that’s how you measures your proficiency.

Bilingual can also mean “natively proficient in two languages”. And if you’re older than three years old and are not native speakers of multiple languages already, the chances of you becoming one are slim.

Native proficiency is a result of a language acquisition ability that is not well understood and disappears early into child development. It results in a level of effortless mastery that seems to be impossible to achieve as an adult, i.e. a dedicated or merely attentive native speaker will be able to recognize that you are not one.

There’s Black Sea too. I swear it exists, I saw it!

It’s not “people vs persons” but “those people vs they”.

Conversationally, “those/these” distances you from the group you are talking about, which is humorously weird when it’s your family you’re talking about.

It’s not the meaning of the words, but habitual (and often fleeting) attribution around them that tripped you up.

PS: “People” are uncountable, “persons” are countable. That’s basically the whole difference between the two plurals. Although it’s rapidly disappearing, as “ten people” won’t raise a single eyebrow in a conversation.

There are actually five people in the picture.

If you know, you know.

Ten and a half. And that’s only if we discount Tuzla island dispute and continuous attempts to take control of politics and economy.

“90% accurate” is a non-statement. It’s like you haven’t even watched the video you respond to. Also, where the hell did you pull that number from?

How specific is it and how sensitive is it is what matters. And if Mirai in https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/scitranslmed.aba4373 is the same model that the tweet mentions, then neither its specificity nor sensitivity reach 90%. And considering that the image in the tweet is trackable to a publication in the same year (https://news.mit.edu/2021/robust-artificial-intelligence-tools-predict-future-cancer-0128), I’m fairly sure that it’s the same Mirai.

https://youtube.com/shorts/xIMlJUwB1m8?si=zH6eF5xZ5Xoz_zsz

Detecting is not enough to be useful.