Leaderboard

Many historical 'facts' are contested and debated by historians. Things like the cause of the fall of the Mycenaean civilization, which, along with Crete, comprised the 1st Greek empire, fought a war with Troy, and literally disappeared from the face of the Earth. Things like did the Roman Empire really fall, or did it just 'absorb' invaders and convert them to the Roman way of life and governance. Things like the cause and mistakes in execution of the 1st World War. And its contribution to the beginning of the 2nd World War. Things like Papal authority ( even over Emperors ) and the amassing of power and corruption by the Church, along with wars encouraged by the Church and the selling of 'Salvation' which led to splintering into differing 'sects'. Things like was the Vietnam War winnable, and more importantly, was winning necessary or of benefit. Things like the paradigm shift that brought about the Renaissance. How many did you want me to list ...

My skin is thicker, or I should say the environment is no longer thinning my skin. I had a lot going on personally last month and I sincerely apologise to you and the other moderators for taking out those frustrations on this forum and causing offense. I hope I can earn your forgiveness by displaying a more relaxed attitude within this space, that you all do an excellent job of overseeing, despite the fact that it is voluntary within your own time. I'd also like to thank you for not having a knee jerk reactions to my criticisms of this space and not banning me outright, thank you for allowing me to come back. I do see your points, I did do some checks on logic threads, I also did a check on individual comments alone. While there are certainly a few instances of individuals who display a lack of understanding of what logic is, the traffic is low and the context of those dialogues usually either leads to someone correcting the logic anyway or it just not being touched with a ten foot barge pole. Should the traffic for any of these things increase, I'll make a politer petition at that time and won't make it a hill to die on. That being said; Aesthetics and History. The Sculptures made of Almonds, with a few rule tweaks could also be an area where aesthetics can feature. I think it could not only be enjoyable for users, but moderators too. If we use a broad definition of art. Music, TV, Movies, Paintings, Almond Sculptures obviously, theatre, paintings, who the fuck is banksy? Etc. You don't even have to change the name of the thread. It can just be like an inside art joke on comedy. I do also like the idea if a history section as it is such a catch all. Every field has it's history after all! It's also one of those subjects where if it was there, I think a lot of traffic would naturally flow into it more than if it wasn't there. A good analogy might be to say that a History thread would be like a new highway, as opposed to a Logic thread, which is just new footpaths. One thing that I should highlight for everyone who would want a history section and an aesthetics section; How should they be moderated and what should the rules and guidelines be for those new forums? What does a good thread and a bad thread look like in those forums? Hi MigL! Hope you are well! Can you give an example of a thread you would post in a history section? Me personally; I would use it to ask questions about history for things that I don't know but am curious about. Things like, Who built this? How did this war start? What turned this dictator into such an asshole? That sort of thing. But only if I had a hard time finding information on those things myself or conflicting accounts. As for Aesthetics; I'd probably just post things about movies, video games, the occasional painting, artists, books, music. With questions about those like, What is the moral of this story? What does this song mean? As for how they would be moderated and what the rules for these new forums should be.. *Shrugs*

htt ps://youtu.be/8NmoMe2_53I

What's the purpose of the project? Are you focused more on learning how programming a chatbot works, or do you just want a working product (or something else)? The full model has 175 billion parameters. Crazy stuff. I heard rumour that GPT 4 will have 20 trillion parameters. How much do you think just making bigger models and feeding them more data will improve outcomes?

Some example threads in Politics or Other Sciences would be better than a list to demonstrate interest in the subject.

Just doing quick mental calculations ... Mercury solidifies at a pressure of 14 Kilobar, which is approx. 14000 standard atms. That is equivalent to approx. 420 000 in of Mercury, which is 35 000 ft, or approx. 6.5 miles. IOW your hypothetical planet would have a Mercury 'sea', 6.5 miles deep, surrounding a solid orb of Mercury. Not sure about Gallium, as it expands when 'frozen' ( like water ).

Neutron stars are composed almost entirely of 'nuclear material with a 'possible' heavy element 'atmosphere'. As such, the normal chemical ( electron bonding ) reactions we normally associate with Chemistry, don't happen. I suggest the local library, or download an e-file, of the book Dragon's Egg, by R L Forward ( a Physicist ). It is Science Fact-ion, and provides a 'realistic' look at 'life' on a neutron star.

From "Biology of the Aardvark" available on https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/52/Aardvark.pdf page 67: The paper has plenty of references that may give further information. See for instance appendix A, page 164 for the source regarding taste (Carr23).

You are now a pachyderm. From the greek (pachy- (“thick”) +‎ -derm (“skin”).

What are the properties of these physical influences? How do they interact with each other? How do they interact with existing 'physical influences'? Do they interact with existing 'physical influences'? What exactly is a "hypothetical something else"? Unless you provide some detail, your question is on a par with "What would happen if Person A met Person B at Place C while Fact D was changing from one thing to another"?

The Copenhagen interpretation simply can be intuitively understood as another striking property of the Hermitian operator. In QM every observable has an associated operator. This operator is Hermitian because the observable value need to be real. Now this Hermitian operator, say Q, has the property to return eigenvalues, say q, when operating on a function, called the eigenfunction or eigenstate. In a determinate state, the measurement of Q will always produce a certain eigenvalue q. Putting it other way might help. If measuring a physical quantity returns a certain value q, then we can be sure that it was in the state |q>, the associated eigenstate of q. Thus, you can draw the conclusion that "immediately" after the measurement, the state collapsed to |q>.

Our brain works hard to maintain color constancy. Some mechanisms are known, I believe, but as a whole is still subject to investigation. I assume that similar mechanisms are at play at reflective surfaces, colours are intepreted based on context. If we see a perfect reflection we interpret the reflected object, but seeing the object in isolation we interpret its surface instead. There may be other mechanisms at play as part of scene recognition, but this is way outside of any of my expertise.

Here is an online meatball calculator: https://www.mathsisfun.com/geometry/sphere-volume-area.html

! Moderator Note Two things here. No more slurs against groups, that's against our rules, and you won't get another warning. Second, if you aren't going to listen to the evidence of those refuting what you claim, you aren't discussing anything, you're preaching, and that's also against our rules. Discussion means there is a possibility someone will hear evidence that could change their mind. Preaching/soapboxing means you're trying to teach us your way no matter what, and that's better done with a blog. Thread closed. If you start a similar thread, please make sure you're willing to learn like everyone else involved.

Hopefully that knowledge was INvaluable!😉

Hi everyone. Last year I finished online Amazon courses and it was really unvaluable knowledge. This year I decided to study at home due to COVID-19. I spent a lot of time searching for the best online Universities.

The Theory of Evolution says much more than "just...that life changes over time".

You cannot check whether a theory is true; that would be impossible. You can only check whether it is false; every scientific theory, then, has to be falsifiable. Even your new, alternative theory. The question then, boils down to, which one is a best fit to the available evidence. Is yours ?

Not yet*. That does not seem to match my experiences from the area, I have made proof of concept chat bots based on machine learning** from two large commercial vendors. I did not explicitly program the parsing of the user input or the extraction of intents and entities. I have a followup question on that. In your opinion, is that a viable approach in a more general application that zak100's example? Assume we have a working input parsing, tokenising, stemming, intent and entity extraction etc in place. To perform back end calls (bot actions) and generate output we need to track the current state or context (I've seen different words used). Example: we have the following (sketchy) dialogue: (chatbot output in italics) "How much does 5 bananas cost?" "5 bananas costs 4€" "I want to buy them" "I have added 5 bananas to the basket" "Do you have apples in stock?" "Yes we have apples in stock" "What is the price of them?" "One apple costs 0.35€" The reasonable answer would be to present the price of apples, not the price of the bananas in the shopping basket. Would Markov Chain be useful to handle the user switching the context in the example above? Reason for asking; I have tried things related to this in more high level frameworks where the underlaying mechanism was not exposed. Your response to zak made me interested in possible implementations. (Note that the above is just a quick example, it could be reasonable for the bot to answer "I want to buy them" with "I did not understand that, please try something else" or "sorry we do not have 'them' in stock) See the example above. The bot needs access to price and stock, probably via some calls (sometimes called bot actions) to a backend system, service API or other. Ok, I'll get some links to introduction material... or maybe not: Yes. The chat bot will only know about the information it has available. Training a chatbot to generate random sentences from a book will not make the chatbot capable of knowing how to make API calls to an online grocery shop. *) I have had other requirements requiring other solutions. **) If machine learning is part of what you call "AI techniques".

First, it shouldn't be an insult. Second, I'm not sure what "look gay" means in this context, since we only have your pictures to judge by. And third, we still don't know what gender you identify with, but should we assume you're attracted to women, since you object to being considered gay? The situations you describe in your OP aren't clear. You said you had problems in puberty with your beard, but you also said you looked like a girl. I'm still unsure what parts of your sexuality are bothering you. Unless I missed something, it seems like you're angry that people think you look gay because you're not, but I don't know why that's such a problem. Does it keep you from meeting eligible women? Have you talked to a professional about this? "Pretty sure" doesn't seem to be adequate for something this important. We're very happy to discuss this problem with you, but this is beyond our scope. NOBODY here is qualified to talk you down from suicidal thoughts over the internet. If you mention this again, we're going to have to close the thread and recommend you see a medical professional IMMEDIATELY! In any case, I highly recommend you seek professional help for this problem.

Have you ever thought that there are millions of people like you in the world? I can see nothing wrong with you. The wrong is in the people who insult you. What you say suggests to me that you live in a very narrow-minded environment.

It's my understanding that sexual orientation and gender identity are different aspects, and there's hormonal and environmental issues involved as well as biological. Who you're sexually attracted to and which gender you identify with aren't necessarily related. And I don't think you can change either one easily. The idea is to identify the gender role that feels right to you, and then do the same with your sexual orientation. In this way, we can place the behavior on a spectrum rather than view it as "faulty". You look VERY not happy. Why do you think something's "not right" rather than just different? Can you share which gender you would prefer to identify with? What kind of person attracts you sexually?

+1. I totally agree, without external factors there is "free" but there can be no "will."

This is one of the weirdest definitions of free will I've ever heard. Without external factors there is not even a reason to act. What you want is always in a field of possibilities from which you can choose. Using a more direct, less controversial definition of free will your problem does not even arise.If you can act according your own wishes and beliefs, then you acted freely. If you can act freely, you have free will. Or let it put a little differently: given your wishes and beliefs, if you can act according to them, you have free will. The idea that you can choose what preferences you have (before you are born???) is an absurd idea. 'You' were not there, so who is doing the choosing of your preferences? And what are the preferences used to choose your preferences? Using a definition that implies an infinite regress from the beginning is a very poor move, and leads inherently to absurdities. You do not choose who or what you self are. But you can choose how to act. That is the touchstone for the question if you act freely: if you act according your own (given!) preferences, you act freely. If you are coerced, i.e. act according the preferences of somebody else, against your own preferences is a 'none-free' action.

Mitsubishi would strongly disagree.

And so it may be with our robots in the future.

I think there are some redundancies. The Genetics and Biochemistry/Genetic Engineering sections should be merged. Same for Neurology and Psychiatry/Psychology, though that is just because most neurology questions are about how a neurological condition leads to a psychological one (or vice versa). Biomedical Ethics could be broadened to include ethical aspects of science in general.

This is science fiction, not science. What ver you wish it to be.

Answer: A month-old doughnut with mold on it. Are we feeling a little 'scatter-brained' today ????

A. Your answer to the question by way of indicating an absence of holes tells me plenty B. There has been no movement beyond Natural Selection nor the evolutionary tree. Neutral selection gets a bit of attention, but still exists at the wayside.

Bravoo for saying a thing without certain! Well, I have no any problem for your claim!! Bcz i don't know who is king of those scorpion/everything eaters.. you or any other.. and don't want to know and it's not important for me. And don't need to any evidence from you. Are wrong???? Or you guess "are wrong"!! I don't aware what wrong there are within other religions and don't want to know until they claim a thing against my Religion, Shi'a-Islam. Then i research and start the same Algorithm i mentioned in the previous post. As you yourself mentioned, It is your own problem! And one who makes the extraordinary claim, it's not important for him that one/others agree/believe/accept his claim or not. And doesn't force others to agreement or not. Yea of course. Bcz the Religion is the One! As God Is The One! And those differences are bcz of some people have added/removed something to/from the scriptures. Bravoo! 1-Therefore the onus is on us to research/seek for the truer! 2-Didn't i convince/change in my belief about that topic that i claimed the antichrist is the same satellite orbiting!? I agreed my wrong and won't continue that claim anymore. 3-Those are the fools. I quoted from our Religion that even majority of people of the paradise are fools! The Foll means = close-minded people who think there isn't any truth over themselves EVEN IF THEY ARE REALLY THE BESTEST!