Of course taking out the trash isn’t necessary, but no one wants to live in filth.

It sounds like they’re using IP bans for exactly what they’re meant to do.

I don’t think it’s a snide joke about what people call it. I think OP has no idea that it’s called Neapolitan ice cream, not Napoleon ice cream, so there’s no joke at all. If it were called Napoleon ice cream, I suppose it’s a joke of sorts, but not one I consider very good.

Is the cluelessness the joke or is it genuine ignorance?

It’s unfair to blame the restaurant when the private equity firm that bought them deliberately stripped the restaurant’s assets, hoping to rip off some later buyer. https://www.nbcnews.com/business/consumer/private-equity-rolled-red-lobster-rcna153397

No, that assumes that prices are based on cost, which is not true. Ads are a way to make money on top of what people will pay.

“Without the ads, the subscription would be much more expensive.”

That’s not at all how it works. How is it that adults think prices are based on costs? They teach supply and demand in high school.

Is he still missing?

I’m perfectly happy to pay for things I value, especially if the alternative is being forced to pay with my time and attention. The evidence also doesn’t entirely support your argument, since plenty of places that you pay for still try to show ads.

“Interestingly, this effect cannot be explained by differences in participants’ experience with generative AI models, as that variable is insignificant in the mode”

When predictors are correlated, which is most likely the case here, this analysis cannot separately estimate their effects. The software will end up splitting the total effect size between the two predictors. Without describing collineariry between predictors, it’s not possible here to judge whether experience with AI is truly unimportant or the analysis is merely incapable of spotting the effect.

As for eroding confidence in reviews, this will make it worse, but I already put next to no stock in user reviews anymore. You don’t need AI to make a good human-like review that lies about a product, and there are plenty of those around.

Hardware keeps getting exponentially faster and software keeps getting exponentially slower. The only people seeming to benefit from better hardware is lazy developers.

Yeah, so few people advocate for this though. It’s either fluoridation is unbalancing my humors or let’s fluoridate a bunch of water that will go down the drain.

I think voters should petition their local officials to change their local election systems to use some sort of proportional voting. Then we’ll get better local officials and we can keep pushing this system to higher levels.

I don’t like NPV. I wrote about that in response to someone else, but in short, it’s the same mentality as allocating all electors to someone who wins only a portion of the vote, which is inherently flawed. It’s better than what we have now, but it’s a hard sell because people never want their vote to go to a candidate they didn’t support, so there will always be states that rightly don’t support it.

Part of the problem seems to be that no one seems to know what the electrical college is. The difference in voting power you describe above is not the electoral college. That’s that fact that states have disproportionate voting power. The college reflects that, but it’s not due to the college. You could have that without the college. Also, that disproportionate power is something to disagree with, but it has not resulted in a president winning an election despite losing the popular vote. You could keep disproportionate power and the college, and if states allocated proportionally, none of the times the US has elected a president who lost the popular vote would have occured. Conversely, if you removed disproportionate power but kept allocating all votes to the pop vote winner in the state, not a single election outcome would have been different. The problem is that states don’t allocate proportionally. That’s it.

I already said that two states allocate proportionally…

NPV is minor improvement and a terrible approach. States don’t have an incentive to allocate their electors to a candidate that wasn’t popular in the state. That makes it hard to adopt, and certainly some states will never adopt it. It has gained ground, and maybe it will take effect in the states where it’s passed, but I guarantee that as soon as a some states are allocating electors to a candidate that wasn’t popular there, they’ll repeal it. Conversely, everyone is incentived for their vote to go toward the candidate they actually voted for. Getting states to do that doesn’t require buy in from a dozen states like NPV does. It’s a state level incentive that achieves everything NPV hopes to achieve, that’s far easier to implement, and has the added bonus of not further supporting the shitty two party system.

I don’t think there’s ever a case where the electoral college itself has ever been the problem. The problem is the same one that plagues local elections but in a different form: there isn’t proportional voting.

At the national level, states allocate all of their electors to the candidate that wins the popular vote in that state. If a candidate wins 51% of the state’s votes they get 100% of the electors. That has historically been the reason presidents win despite losing the popular vote, not because of the college itself. Even without the college, if states allocated their voting power that way, you’d have the exact same problem.

At the local level the problem is more confined in that an individual can only put all of their influence behind a single candidate. This forces one to choose the least bad option.

The solution at all levels is proportional voting. States should allocate their electors according to the proportion of votes candidate receive. This needs some thought to do because it’s impossible to allocate exactly proportionally, but it’s a simple problem to address. At least two states do this. For every election I’m aware of where the president won despite losing the popular vote, this would have prevented that.

At all levels, something like ranked choice voting (there are other possibilities) allows voters to support multiple candidates, letting them give the most support for the candidate they genuinely prefer, but giving a hedge to support a candidate they do t love but that’s better than their worst candidate. This could be applied on top of a state’s system for allocating electors.

This is probably a top 3 priority for creating a workable government instead of this shit show we have now. It’s gaining significant reactions with several states using some sort of proportional system, but there’s heavy opposition from the current policitians. They know if it gets through, they’ll lose their elections, and won’t be able to jerk around their constituents. If you’re sick of one shit party vs another shit party, do everything you can to support proportional voting at all levels, and to get your state to allocate electors proportionally (not like the NPV pact does).

If he tries to sell large amount at once, presumably the price would plummet. I can’t imagine there are anywhere near 3.5 billion dollars of buyers out there for this.

What is going on at Microsoft? Did anyone ask for this? How about they make search work again and not use 4 Gb just turn turn on the computer?

So what, when you turn on your computer it goes straight to the BIOS menu?

Is your claim simply that XX folks have twice as many X genes as XY folks? It doesn’t take anything from the article or what I said to understand that. That’s tautological.

The article is about the mechanism explaining why women have more autoimmune diseases than men. Nothing in the article implicates the number of genes themselves in the mechanism. Theybstayes that the gene that deactivates one of the X chromosomes has side effects. They do not describe the details of that. Maybe ultimately there is some reason the pair of X chromosomes is itself involved, but nothing in the study indicates that, and what they describe doesn’t necessarily involve that as part of the mechanism.

No, and nothing in what I wrote implies that.