Disagree. The debate showed that his communication abilities are nearly gone, but his mind behind them is intact, just slower than it was.
Which is a really unfortunate position for him to be in. It can't be pleasant. He's not suitable to lead the country for another four years for sure. The country needs a leader who inspires people, and no one on that debate stage was that.
Surely "nearly all" is implicit in the word "revolution" more than in "communist"? (And socialism being so much vaguer in practice that I never know if the person saying it means "The Democratic Party of the USA" or the way that the nordic countries are "socialist", which are a long way from Chinese communism, which is itself denounced as being "state capitalism" by some).
Again, you assume their goal is the continuation of the republic as it exists and to make that more likely. This is probably not the case, first of all these agencies are compartmentalized, different projects can and often do have competing goals, and second, their ultimate goal is the continuation of state power, as is the goal of every state, and if that goal conflicts with what Americans view as being in their interest, then any expected loyalty to their countrymen cannot be relied upon.
But why would they not want “the continuation of the republic?” You don’t offer any plausible motive for why they wouldn’t. The power of the state — eg the ability to get folks to row in the same direction towards a common goal — is contingent upon the social contract, which at the present moment most seem to experience as perilously broken.
I don't need to offer you a motive. I can't read peoples minds. I'm just pointing out that your assumption that they view our social goals as valuable is unfounded. Emperors have killed their own people before. The power of a state rests upon social contract until the state has real power, and then it rests on the maintenance of that power. You cannot foresee what the maintenance of that power entails, and neither can I, which is why I can do no more than speculate on motive. Again, I'm not saying they don't value the same things we value, I believe that but that's not a claim I'm making here. I'm just pointing out that that doesn't have to be the case. You're ascribing a motive you cannot possibly know to the actions of other individuals, I won't do that. Remember, the state is comprised of people, with goals and ends and desires and beliefs, it's not a perfect alamgamation of the desires of those governed.
Let me ask you, why might a state view a foreign population, not a foreign state but a foreign population, as an enemy or a threat? What is it specific to that population that poses a threat to said state? Is it something that precludes the domestic population from being a similar threat? Why must the state view us as anything more than another colony?
>why might a state view a foreign population, not a foreign state but a foreign population, as an enemy or a threat? What is it specific to that population that poses a threat to said state? Is it something that precludes the domestic population from being a similar threat? Why must the state view us as anything more than another colony?
The state might view a foreign population as an enemy because they support their government which is an enemy. If we support a foreign government, the state might also view us as an enemy. My original point was that the CIA wants us to support the US government.
That's because the author of the linked thread is being intentionally misleading about the careers and expertise of these individuals, and what they do as corporate executives.
This is basically how the 1st Amendment is "backdoored" in this country.
The government cannot be so brazen in curtailing freedom of speech directly so they use Big Tech as the cat's paw. Any complaint over Big Tech's censorship/narrative control can then be met with the “it’s a private company, they can do what they want” retort.
Exactly. Give us access the model and let independant researchers test it. OpenAI did this with GPT4, opening access publicly and deeper access to researchers within and outside of Microsoft.
I simply don't believe the model is that good. Otherwise, maybe try to compete with OpenAI directley?
Wonder why they're not just giving us access, if it's indeed so good? Seems it's just to generate some noise and hype around Gemini. Hardly believable after the previous faked demo, as someone already said.
Google faces a different calculus than Microsoft/OpenAI when throwing these things out. It's just like Google Cloud. They have huge, valuable first-party workloads that compete for the hardware resources that would be used by generally-available free AI toys.
For Microsoft it doesn't make a difference. They are taking their own cash, investing it in OpenAI, and then turning right around and booking it as revenue. As a bonus it makes Google look wrong-footed. But fundamentally Microsoft doesn't care how much money they torch doing this.
Even the demo now is careful to show curated but possible things now. they learned their lesson.
The code changes are the most common tutorials you can find on the web. Adding a speed slider, the terrain tutorials are literary called "height maps" and focus on making it taller or flatter.
To be fair, they mostly faked the near instantaneous, real-time flow of the conversations. The answers were, as far as I know, legit. But I still agree that we should be skeptical.
The prompts they used were also different than the ones given like “is this the right order” was “is this the right order, consider the distance from the sun” they put this in their post on Google dev blog.
This one seems to be super straightforward about timeliness and capabilities, but the examples might be a bit simpler than people think. This is pretty amazing but like someone else said you could achieve similar results from rag due to the lack of novelty in these questions and the fact that each dealt with pretty independent examples as opposed to using custom code developed elsewhere in the codebase.
Exactly the same here. Gaming time slowly tapered off during university. Anytime I have picked up a game since then it has been short lived. I'm at the point now where I won't even bother trying a new game (or revisiting an old one). I know I'll get bored of it in 30 mins, so why bother?
It feels like a lot of work picking up a new game. Combine that with the realization that it is just an engineered dopamine loop and that I could be doing something productive, videogames are essentially "dead" to me.
When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.
Interestingly, various Greek tyrants were known for intentionally diversifying their cities in an attempt to break the solidarity of a population that might otherwise rise against them.
Thucydides noted: "A crowd like that are hardly likely to respond unanimously to any proposal or to organize themselves for joint action"
I've also read the "conspiracy theory" that racial division is pushed in an attempt to disrupt solidarity based on economic class.
I was more referring to the "conspiracy theory" that such a tactic is currently in use by the powers that be. Not a topic I am familiar with so I certainly won't dispute that it occurred historically.
There have been a variety of studies and reports, both for and against, the use of hydroxychloroquine. Is there any reason this particular study is so highly upvoted? Or is this just an attempt to dunk on Trump for suggesting the drug showed promise?
People forget that the "rule of least power" is "the language with the least power suitable for the task". The question is whether YAML/HCL are suitable for the task to begin with. The following facts all testify that it is not, and that the principle of least power favors "real programming languages":
* CloudFormation hacks things like references, nested-stacks, macros, imports, etc onto YAML
* HCL becomes more powerful with each version
* Helm generates YAML with templates and recently added support for Lua
* AWS is building its CDK, which generates CloudFormation with programming languages
Sorry, but this borders on gaslighting.
It's not that he "didn't have the chops" to win the debate, it's that during the debate he clearly demonstrated that his mind is gone.