exchemist

Suitably vague. Along with your IT experience, your crane driving at Chatham and all the rest.

What protest was that?

By the way, who’s the Gagool lookalike in your OP? Looks older than God’s dog.

He’s answering your question about where they get their empirical evidence. From their own machine.

No.

Ah but you are not taking into account the explanatory power of the No True Scotsman gambit. Most of these Christians, you see, are not true Christians. The true Christians are just those belonging to whichever wacky sect is making the prediction.🤪 They even have a term, “churchian”, for people who go to church but don’t subscribe exactly to the specific set of beliefs that they do. These sects are all based on the exclusionary principle ( not Pauli’s 😁) , often excluding people by defining “chosen people” in a conveniently narrow way.

I've learnt something here. I had no idea birds photosynthesise vitamin D from UV just as we do. How does that work, seeing as they are all covered with feathers? Reptiles I can understand as they have bare skin, or just scales that are presumably translucent. But birds?

Love it! 😄

Maybe the post itself has gone but not the title, for some reason.

The currently still visible “Kraken” spam post in the Maths section is a case in point. For some odd reason it’s still there after the cleanup, but one does not have permission to view it. Weird.

What? Again? Didn’t we have another of these dates just a few years ago? They pop up periodically, making a new crowd of idiots feel sheepish each time. But when you say “many” American evangelicals left their jobs and sold their possessions, how many? Not more than a couple of hundred surely?

Yeah but only by Avi "Frontal" Loeb, who has notorious form for this sort of thing.

To add a bit to @swansont ’s reply, both ships dissipate (as heat) energy at the same rate, due to the motion of their hulls relative to the water. . However in the case of the moored ship this energy comes from the current.

Well it certainly has bugger all to do with AI development. 😁

Energy of radiation, say, can be converted to the rest mass of constituents of matter, certainly. But energy on its own is meaningless.

"framework". That F word, again.

This is hopeless.

What are you are on about? What is the "Academy of Science"? Where do Galileo, Semmelweis and Tesla come into it? And what is the parallel you think you see? Stop speaking in riddles.

Why are you quoting from the Book of Lamentations (vv. 1-4) in the Old Testament (Authorised Version)? This is about the Babylonian Captivity, the period when the Jews were exiled to Babylon by Nebuchadnezzar. What relevance does this have to the thread topic, or to Galileo, Semmelweis or - help us - Tesla? Or is this just random botshit from your beloved Jyoti?🤪

My understanding is that the primordial nucleosynthesis involved chiefly a plasma of electrons, positrons and γ-ray photons, i.e. radiation. It makes no sense to speak of energy as if it's a free-standing entity. Elementary particles and radiation are physical entities however. As for E=mc², that simply says that energy is associated with mass. Both mass and energy are properties of some physical system or entity. You can't have a jug of mass, nor can you have a jug of energy. So when you speak of either you need to say what system or entity they are properties of.

You need to state what each of these quantities is. The speed of light does not seem to appear anywhere in this expression, by the way.

Yes I also wondered about this. I suppose the downsides are another - and time-sensitive - task for administrators, plus a higher hurdle to join, which might put off the casual newbies that a site like this may feel it needs to attract to remain vibrant. Short of that I would think a kill switch that temporarily prevents any new joiners, which could be deployed for say 24-48hrs when a spam attack starts, might help.

Nobody says LLMs produce exclusively slop, nor do they assert there will be no improvement in their quality. The scepticism from people like me arises from firstly the hype around them and secondly the demonstrably baleful effect they currently have on unsuspecting people* and on social media. The Financial Times reported this week the results of a survey they did of business take-up of AI. Turns out that although businesses trumpet their take-up, almost none of them can point to any resulting improvements in their business. So it looks as if they are doing it due to FOMO (fear of missing out) rather than because of any real, substantial application. They are behaving like sheep and following the trend, in other words. The Sam Alt-Rights of this world love this and feed the hype, as it makes their stock price go up, but it’s riding for a nasty fall. No doubt these things will get better, but it looks to me as if we have to go through another dotcom bubble experience of boom and bust, before businesses and AI designers get more realistic about their true scope of application. And on the consumer level, we badly need guardrails to stop people becoming addicts of LLMs and to prevent their misuse to spread disinformation. *Just look at poor @Prajna . He thinks he is in a relationship with a chatbot called Jyoti 🤪.

Isn't that Deep Seek? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DeepSeek I thought it was rather funny the way this cheap'n'cheerful LLM put the cat among the pigeons in Silicon Valley. One in the eye for Sam Alt-Right and the other AI hypemeisters😁. But I probably know even less about this technology than you do. For instance I don't know what "spiking neural networks" means.

It seems to me the term "bloodline" doesn't have much meaning, scientifically. Given that each generation has 2 parents, extrapolating ancestry back over many generations gives rise to a rapidly branching tree, receding into the past, not a line. For example, if you go back 4 generations from a given individual, their genetic makeup is composed of 1/16th each from 16 ancestors. So I cannot see how a "bloodline" can have any biological meaning. My impression is it is a cultural term, used to denote the ancestry of surnames, which traditionally follow the males of each generation, ignoring the equal genetic contributions to each generation from females, who belong to different "bloodlines", i.e. have different surnames.