peanuts4life

"looks at bookshelf of completely unread books." Oh... Yeah I love books!

Isn't this whole thing a bit performative? I mean, dogs aren't inherently more worthy of liberation from the meat market than any other farm animal.

Not really, it's just that the sheer quantity of hours has been find to be less important than the original study presented. Essentially, with good aptitude and quality practice, you don't actually need 10,000 hours to reach the top percentile.

The author of this article seems to have taken this in some weird directions. They have had personal experiences of being pressured to practice long hours at something they struggled in. They find relief in the new study, which they allegedly believe validates the idea that it was a hopeless endeavor. I'd argue that the fault didn't lie with the 10,000 hour number, but rather with thier family who pushed the author too hard to succeed in a sport they probably weren't improving at, Rather than reevaluating motivating factors or approach.

Of course 10,000 hours is arbitrary. I'm just saying, the study doesn't assert that inherit talent even exist, let alone is the primary factor. It only contradicts the number of hours.

I agree, but maybe it's time for a Linux based Nintendo DS / PSP sized device? I mean, Nintendo has abandoned these truly pocketable consoles. Maybe with a die shrink they could fit something 70% as performant as a deck into that form Factor?

I personally know a lot of people who miss the DS and don't game anymore now that the platform was dropped. Casual gamer types.

I just dump a liter of bleach in the upper deck and remove the seat. Nothing cleans you up better than a good swirl.

I might be mistaken, but these Intel based machines might be better for switch emulation, as they share dedicated hw for the particular form of texture decompression they use. One cool potential upside

I've seen this with gpt4. If I ask it to proofread text with errors it consistently does a great job, but if I prompt it to proofread a text without errors, it hallucinates them. It's funny to see Microsoft having the same issue.

Still loving my 1070!

It's really concerning how many comments are snidly dismissive or in some cases outright hostile to this particular peice of reporting.

Does Hamas deny that the hostages were kidnapped or mistreated? Are the circumstances of these particular people's capture suspect? Are thier experiences disputed?

I see no comments even attempting to say so. It reads as wantonly jingoistic.

"our fake history" is a pretty good match to what you're describing. It's a relatively light hearted, rigorously researched, history podcast with a focus on misunderstood historical figures and events.

"The plastic plesiosaur podcast" is a really fun podcast more focused on cryptids and pop science.

One of the host to plastic plesiosaur has a YouTube channel called "trey the explainer" which is worth a watch.

And if you like low key, entertaining deep dives into machining or tech, check out "technology connections," "this old Tony," and "tech moan."

Imo, the true fallacy of using AI for journalism or general text, lies not so much in generative AI's fundamental unreliability, but rather it's existence as an affordable service.

Why would I want to parse through AI generated text on times.com, when for free, I could speak to some of the most advanced AI on bing.com or openai's chat GPT or Google bard or a meta product. These, after all, are the back ends that most journalistic or general written content websites are using to generate text.

To be clear, I ask why not cut out the middleman if they're just serving me AI content.

I use AI products frequently, and I think they have quite a bit of value. However, when I want new accurate information on current developments, or really anything more reliable or deeper than a Wikipedia article, I turn exclusively to human sources.

The only justification a service has for serving me generated AI text, is perhaps the promise that they have a custom trained model with highly specific training data. I can imagine, for example, weather.com developing highly specific specialized AI models which tie into an in-house llm and provide me with up-to-date and accurate weather information. The question I would have in that case would be why am I reading an article rather than just being given access to the llm for a nominal fee? At some point, they are not no longer a regular website, they are a vendor for a in-house AI.

I get what you are meaning to say, that secondary sexual characteristics dictate certain trends and limits. I agree.

However, what I find interesting is that historically, the bulk of manual labor was done by the lowest class cultures. It depends on the time and place, but indentured servants, slaves, and women of the household were expected to do most of the labor. These decisions were not made on the merits of absolute physical strength, but rather by ones social status.

In fact, the strongest men. Those with the most physical apitude and power, tended to enjoy leisure at the expense of these lower classes. Including thier women.

The idea that strong men make strong countries, or do the best work, is a myth. Typically, wealth is built by poor men, women, and subjugated social classes, and the mythical status of the strong man gender stereotype serves to justify this arrangement.

So yes, the strongest biological male human will probably always outlift the strongest biological female, but the actual outcomes of who does the work is decided by gender, and historically, the labor fell on the woman. See what I mean about gender being, "bad?"