To be fair , if foreign students are coming and paying tuition, that does provide some small benefit on the jobs front as both the money the college then spends and that spent by the students in the area around the school should create demand that requires a workforce to fill.
Well no, but I was more referring to the general statement than the notion that it applies to musk. Having the self awareness to see the harm in what he’s done and those he’s supported doesn’t seem particularly in character for him in any event.
I mean, if someone was to argue about that topic they could probably examine like, Oskar Schindler or John Rabe or such, but that’s besides the point I suppose.
after years and many billions of dollars of technological development, we have finally invented a machine that can be scammed
I saw a variation on this once that added something else as “knowing how to make a tomato-using fruit salad taste good” or somesuch, but I forget what trait they assigned that to.
As someone who used to live in NC but no longer does because of the car dependence and horrible state politics, how the heck is it one of the highest ones? I didn’t think the other states even thought about NC very much outside of election season tbh.
I’m surprised Texas is so high, but I’m not surprised that NJ is low, isn’t there an old meme to the effect that New Jersey smells bad/ is full of toxic industrial chemicals or something?
While I don’t think this scenario likely, something that I can’t help but thinking when this sort of statement comes up is, well, how do we know what it’s doing isn’t thinking? Like, I get that it’s ultimately just using a bunch of statistics to predict the next word or token or whatever, but my understanding was that we have fairly limited knowledge of how our own consciousness and thinking works, and so I keep getting the nagging feeling of “what if what our brains are doing is similar somehow, using a physical system with statistical effects to predict stuff about the world, and that’s what thinking ultimately is?”
While I expect that it probably isn’t and that creating proper agi will require something fundamentally more complicated than what we’ve been doing with these language models and such, the fact that I can’t prove that to my own satisfaction makes me very uneasy about them, considering what the ethical ramifications of being wrong about it might be.
Literally how could we? It’s a big rock, it has no ecosystem whatsoever, and any effort to live there someday would require environmentally sealed and radiation resistant structures. Degrading what it does to earth would require significantly altering it’s mass or orbit, which would require an amount of energy that isn’t in the cards for a long time to come even optimistically.
The way the kid’s torso just goes backwards in the second panel is horrifying if you look too hard at it.
That actually matches with how most people view things though. The utility of eating anyone is going to be extremely small, especially compared to the opportunity cost of a person’s life, so the only time you’re going to get that situation is when someone can be expected to cause so much harm to others in the future as to outweigh their own life, such as, for example, how someone who kills someone that’s attempting to commit mass-murder is usually considered justified in doing so, or if you’re in trolley-problem scenario where saving multiple other people necessarily requires the death of one person.
Setting the scale to not have negative values in a non-relative sense is just to prevent issues like it becoming a good thing to kill sufficiently unhappy people, even if they object and there’s no danger to anyone else averted by doing so.
And this kind of thing is why I think it makes more sense to define utility in a way analogous to how the Kelvin scale defines temperature, such that negative values are impossible and more desirable outcomes are just considered more positive than undesirable ones.
I wonder if this is intentional, some kind of regional thing to call it that instead, or perhaps someone using some sort of translation software that is using a synonym for “squash” in a context where it does not apply? (Though, that would require the original language also use the same word for the vegetable and for squashing things, is that common or unique to English?)
If it was a joke, I definitely missed it then, I didn’t even have the slightest suspicion that it might be one.
Tbh my experience with chinese goods has been that the “garbage quality stuff that breaks easily” is usually the very cheap stuff made to compete on price and nothing else. In which case, an equivalent thing from anywhere would be the same way. Anything I’ve bought from a Chinese manufacturer at a typical price for it’s product type and from a company with a proper brand that isn’t a random string of letters has been decent enough quality. Granted that’s been electronics and not guns, but still, it’s not like the knowledge of how to make stuff doesn’t exist there somehow.
I’ve been pretty happy with how the instance I use has been run thus far, but it is focused around furries, so it won’t be something most people outside that subculture like I expect. Still, the fandom is big enough that someone in it looking for an instance might look at this thread, so I mention it anyway.
Wouldn’t that just be all the smaller onion rings from that particular onion section, stacked together?
Literally monsters Inc.
Are you breeding them, or throwing eggs in through the top, or have some automatic egg throwing mechanism? (I don’t see the latter but it looks modded so I’m not sure what could be there). If it’s throwing eggs related, I think from time to time I’ve had baby chickens spawned that way end up inside the side if a block where they immediately suffocate. I’m not sure glass has that suffocating effect because it’s a transparent block, so maybe some of the chicks spawn glitchily partly inside the glass and some of them manage to get out the other side of it somehow?