Genady

I have already decided for myself against this project. Today I've read this, additional drop pushing in the same direction: Solar panels - an eco-disaster waiting to happen? - BBC News It also adds to what

I think that probability pattern matching is an interpretation of what AI is doing, rather than its actual functioning. There are no, AFAIK, explicit steps of probability pattern matching neither during its training nor during its run. During the training, parameters (aka weights) of a function of specific form are calculated based on a set of input-output pairs. During the run, an output of this function is calculated according to accumulated history of inputs and responses. This is a basic mechanism, although there are variations, additions, modifications, randomizations, human interventions, etc.

And not only for that session, but also for past sessions of that user.

You're right. +1

For the moment, the Southern Caribbean is fine in this respect, i.e., no Sargassum to talk about. However, there is a new problem here, namely, Stony Coral Tissue Loss Disease (SCTLD). It started in Florida about 9 years ago and finally got here, recently. See details here: Bonaire National Marine Park - Stinapa Bonaire.

Promises, promises...

However, there IS a more satisfactory procedure. The pirates are reasonable to the extent that each wants to get a share that he thinks is at least one fifth of the total value. Think about it this way: if such a procedure exists in the case of two pirates, what would prevent it to exist in the case of five?

OT. G. Bruno has nothing to do with quantum gravity.

No, we did this exercise before with the Moon receding from the Earth, and at the end of it you lied about your own answer. I'm not doing it with you again. It is enough that you call this formula "simple" to know that you don't understand its meaning.

Yes, this diagram is not wrong. It is empty of contents. It is not a summary of anything in physics. It is just nonsense. You obviously don't understand the "simple" formula E=mc^2, too.

I think that this video describes very accurately the case of this thread and many others of this kind. Most or all of the features and elements she talks about in the video are present in and characterize the constant stream of theories of everything these forums experience, by the form and by the contents. Our main advantage compared to her is that we are hidden. Or are we?

If it were correct, I would be all for it. But it is wrong. It does not promote the spirit of making science. It promotes only misunderstandings and false illusions of understanding. Knowing that one does not understand something is better than wrongly believing that they do.

It is not what you don't say that makes your blabbering pseudo-scientific. It is what you say. You repeatedly say wrong things. You use words from science, but you don't understand their meaning in science. The worst symptom is that when others point to your mistakes and to your misunderstandings you reply that it is them who don't understand. If your misunderstandings help you sleep better, it is an issue between you and your therapist and it has nothing to do with a science forum discussion.

Sorry @MigL for not making clear in my first comment above that I was referring to the article's title and not to what you said.

This is not true. What you do throughout this entire thread is making up pseudo-scientific statements and declaring them resulting from your diagrams.

Not sure in this case. They refer to 8.6 keV, which assumes a precision of 10% rather than 100%, I think. Also, they compare to the previous max of 5 keV, which means that a factor of ~2 is not ignorable.

What part don't you understand?

Google it.

But not F.

This is what happens if the pencil is pulled to the right: and to the left: How to get it out?

I can speculate in good faith. You don't do it in good faith, this is a point. You are playing, not discussing.

You are right. At least, it is agreed that it is incorrect to say, degrees Kelvin, isn't it?

This is math.... simple math. Pointing to 4/2 = 2 as math in this thread is one more evidence that OP doesn't discuss in a good faith.

Here, the OP is trying to sneak their religious believes into the science discussion.

"It appears the colonel's comments were taken out of context and were meant to be anecdotal."