Toss the crust

• Pro: No additional negative effect on your enjoyment of the food or your body
• Pro: compost and let the plants eat it
• Con: You cease to be a grown ass man

Eat the crust

• Con: Negative enjoyment
• Con: Extra Calorie consumed. More strain on the medical system.

If anything, eating the crust would be the “wasteful” decision. I’m sure if it were possible to get the same pizza without crust, all of these people would jump on that chance.

The smaller the pizza, the more crust there is relative to non-crust.

Don’t let perfect be the enemy of good

I wouldn’t say frozen milk is particularly far into processed territory.

I have no qualms about AI being used in products. But when you have to tell me that something is “powered by AI” as if that’s your main selling point, then you do not have a good product. Tell me what it does, not how it does it.

Oh, so you mean local vs external, not browser-based vs other local solutions.

What makes the built-in database easier to attack than a separate one?

Because the rules of the English language are the same for everybody. You don’t just get to go around telling people they have to use a different ruleset for you or when they are around you. It’s pretentious as fuck to expect people to cater their use of the language like that. That’s exactly what names are for.

Certainly, the rules of the English language exist for a reason. For me, that’s to communicate and convey information. If you unilaterally decide to change the language, then your words can fail to communicate what you intend. Although, I don’t think that applies here. Correct me if you think otherwise.

If anything, it seems like the “new” pronoun rules you see today are people trying to enforce the standard English rules. He/she communicates someone’s gender presentation. If you refer to “him” between someone who looks masculine versus feminine, then you’ll assume that the “him” refers to the one that’s masculine-presenting. That’s how English usually works, and it works this way to allow us more efficient communication. Of course, this doesn’t work 100% of the time because there are many axes and a gradient on each of these axes between what we consider masculine or feminine. What would the English language dictate when you’re near one extreme on some axes and the other extreme on others? I don’t believe we have any well defined and useful rules for this besides the preference of the person it’s referring to. Again, do correct me if I get anything wrong.

Looks like you’re getting a lot of people riled up here.

I’m curious about why you find it so objectionable for someone to choose their pronouns but are fine with name changes.

I rarely downvote, yet I keep seeing posts and comments marked as downvoted by my account. Seems it’s just very easy to fatfinger it and not notice.

I’d be surprised if being born with a specific face configuration isn’t protected in the same way that race and gender are.

Treat people well, and people will like you.

Somehow, we manage to accept organ transplants despite it hurting one healthy person a little to help an unhealthy person a lot. What’s stopping us from treating birth control the same way?

This needs to have multiple levels of “openness” to distinguish between having access to the code, the dataset, a documented training procedure, and the final weights. I wouldn’t consider it fully open unless these are all available, but I still appreciate getting something over nothing, and I think that should be encouraged.

Implying perfect code exists anywhere.

It’s also trivially easy to tell if you’re presenting someone else’s work as your own. In an interview, you ask about their projects. Those would be very easy (and often fun) for the actual creator to answer, and not for anyone else.

You might benefit from installing earlyoom. It’ll kill some of your processes before the system freezes from running out of memory.

It is made by scientists. And we don’t know how to make the model determine whether or not it knows something. So far, we only have tools that tell us that something probably wasn’t in the training set (e.g. using variance across models in a mixture of experts setup), but that doesn’t tell us anything about how correct it is.

I’ve heard Elon Musk (or was it Karpathy?) talking about how camera should be sufficient for all scenarios because humans can do it on vision alone, but that’s poor reasoning IMO. Cars are not humans, so there’s no reason to confine them to the same limitations. If we want them to be safer and more capable than human drivers, one way to do that is by providing them with more information.

Oh, I see. You’re clarifying why jonne thought this was the case, not arguing for why they’re correct.

The article is about Google. Why does it matter that it’s missing from the Alphabet handbook?