What are they gonna do, send the white people back to the mainland?

Except that the angle of a circle’s circumference is measured as an arc with the vertex at the center, and to include an infinite number of angles you would need to reduce the degrees accordingly to avoid overlapping

And then sells telemetry data back to the mothership…

It’s probably easier just to buy one that’s already premade. They’re not prohibitively expensive (at least not the ones that are too large to fit in your pants). Just be sure to read the specs for what it can detect, and learn what each one means.

If you really enjoy soldering, you can buy the components from an electrical supply store (think like radio shack) and then wire them together with an LCD display and program them yourself.

That story was about a guy paying to use an API for a flagship model (like 200 billion parameters).

I think these people are talking about self-hosting a local model (probably like 12-32 billion parameters depending on your hardware), which means no API, no payments, and more personal control over settings and configuration.

Thousands of open-source models are freely available on huggingface, and you can even make your own fine-tuned version based on an existing one using any datasets you choose.

Still no point in using an AI agent to do what a basic alarm/reminder could do, but it allows people to innovate their own ways to integrate them into specific workflows. You can even configure them to play minecraft, just as an example

Those are being built in secret with military funding…

RFK jr. was trying to make a national registry for people with autism, not sure how far that got but I’m pretty sure they can check medicaid records. HIPAA doesn’t mean much to this rogue administration…

They’re setting one up in Puerto fucking Rico?!?!? What are they gonna do, deport all the locals?

trump probably just learned that Puerto Rico is in the US so now he’s trying to collectively punish them for a superbowl halftime show in Spanish…

But they can’t find the money for universal healthcare or public education…

Cause 3D shapes are called solids

That’s impossible! How will the emperor maintain control without the bureaucracy?

A circle has 360° discreet 1° angles. While there’s a theoretically infinite number of angles within a circle, those angles would need to have an infinitesimally small fraction of a degree. If you divide a circle into 3600 angles, each angle would be 0.1°

A segment of a circle is also measured as an arc corresponding to a vertex facing outwards from the center. A triangle’s vertices on the other hand face inwards. The sum of those angles is always 180°. If you juxtapose a circle on top of it, yes, it goes all the way around since it’s a closed shape. But if you place the three vertices side by side so that their lines line up, it’ll only cover half of the circle.

There’s no inconsistency.

Then your view of epistemology is skewed by misrepresentations.

Epistemology is the study of knowledge. Traditionally it’s divided into two branches: rationalism and empiricism. Modern science adheres to empiricism, but without some degree of rationalism, pure empiricism would be reduced to a set of facts with no glue to hold them together.

“All apples are fruits but not all fruits are apples” is a rationalist statement because it implies “If it’s an apple, then it’s a fruit” but not “if its a fruit, then its an apple.” It’s grounded on the premise that apples are a type of fruit, which is an empirical fact based on the characteristics of fruits and apples matching that criteria. But the conclusion that the not all fruits are apples is a rationalist deduction.

That’s a simplistic example, and sounds pointless and intuitive, but the same rules apply in more complex scenarios. And if someone is a rational person, then rationalism should sound intuitive. It’s like saying “a triangle’s vertices add up to 180°.” It’s not relative.

Skepticism is different from Epistemology, although there’s some overlap. But there are healthy and unhealthy ways of doing skepticism. Saying “I won’t believe anything without sufficient evidence” is healthy skepticism. Saying “I won’t believe anything ever and I’ll doubt all evidence presented to me” is unhealthy skepticism.

There’s also radical skepticism which asks “Can we ever truly know anything?” It’s about systematically doubting every possible thing, in effect being skeptical of even the human capacity to know anything beyond a doubt. This originated as a neoplatonic school of thought during the hellenistic era, but in modern philosophy it’s more associated with DesCartes’s Meditations and something called Cartesian Doubt, which is more of a thought-experiment rather than an actual claim.

It basically goes “In order to know anything for sure, first we must doubt everything, and then only allow ourselves to believe that which we can know beyond a doubt.” He then presents a rationalist argument to prove that the first thing that he can verify is that he himself does indeed exist, because if he didn’t then he wouldn’t be able to question whether or not he really exists. Thus, the “Cogito Ergo Sum” argument.

Someone who stops reading after the first meditation might think that means he’s a solipsist, but he goes on to later arguments to prove that he can also trust his senses/perceptions to give him satisfactory evidence of objects in his environment.

Bear in mind that he was writing before the scientific method was formalized, and it likely never would have been developed if it weren’t for the way he revolutionized the philosophical tradition. He wrote at just around the cusp between the late-Renaissance and early-Modern eras, and arguably one of the defining features of this era shift is the way in which the philosophical tradition altered course due to the influence od his work. Later thinkers (i.e., during the Enlightenment) built upon his work when they formalized the scientific method.

Even the shift into post-modernism in the mid-twentieth century was due to the influence of a philosopher who framed his work as a radical critique (and divergence from) the work of DesCartes, which wouldn’t have been possible without the advances in philosophy that had taken place over the centuries since DesCartes revolutionized the tradtion. That’s how “dialogue” or “dialectic” works in the history of philosophy: even if you disagree with something and present an entirely new argument as a response, you can’t ignore the influence that the older argument had on the formation of your rejection of it.

But philosophy shouldn’t cloud science.

Good philosophy doesn’t cloud science. If somebody is using bad philosophy, or pseudo-philosophical tautologies, to obfuscate scientific discovery, then what they’re doing is sophism, not philosophy.

That’s an interesting claim and the first time I’m hearing it. Do you might citing specific examples?

“Something something, worn-out cliché, HA HA HA!”

That’s awesome!

I think they were trying to make an epistemological argument, but it was a poorly crafted one and ignores the ground that science has gained over the radical skepticism of a pseudo-Cartesian doubt.

Epistemology does however dovetail with the very foundations of the scientific method, and while “philosophy isn’t science,” science itself is built upon philosophy. That’s why many of the earliest modern scientists were all considered philosophers during their times.

Because when it happens to other cars, there’s a recall and the problem gets fixed. When it happens to tesla, musk bribes a regulatory body or breaks into the government and defunds an entire institution so that he can get away with it.

Musk has personally set those cars ablaze

He’s not a nazi because his cars are deathtraps. He’s a nazi, and his cars happen to be death traps.

I am leaving. You’re just trying to sound clever

You are.