_nalply

Lipreading Deaf here.

I tried to lipread the Inauguration, and where it was successful I did read the same nonsense, but often it wasn't possible because they weren't looking at the camera or the microphone was in the way.

The Seagulls, however, the only thing I could read was amm-amm-ammmmm-am-am-aaaammm. Nothing else. Of course, the doll has very simple mouth mechanics.

I am Deaf. I lipread German, but rarely lipread English and was successful with lipreading people speaking English as not their native language, namely Greek, Estonian and Marathi but never from the Anglophone world. Turning older, my lipreading competence declines, and I prefer talking in my local Signed Language.

What this article is missing, I think, is that lipreading is not replacing auditory input with visual input because there are too many, let's just call them homophones. I find the word "visemes" a bit too cute. You need a lot of context. So I always struggle if someone asks me a very short question, because I don't know what it's about. Someone comes to me, says hello, and asks the question, and I don't have an idea what they want to know.

Re gameplays, the context is special, because you can assume that the football coach is not shouting "HAKUNA MATATA" over the field. This simplifies lipreading during gameplays. Essentially it devolves into something like a set of radio buttons.

How do you manage zone 5 cardio 4x a week without PEM?

I thought up to 3x a week and never consecutive days is the maximum.

Have some air at the top of the top reservoir, assuming that the top reservoir is at most about 10 m deep in water (to avoid damage from storms). Or have the air in separate chambers fixed to the top reservoir.

Ah, so you meant UB = unspecified behavior, not UB = undefined behavior.

Maybe. Bugs that come from spooky behavior at a distance are notoriously hard to debug, especially in production, and it's worthwile to pay for it to avoid that.

It's WASM. WASM runs in a sandbox and you can't have UB on the hardware level. Imagine someone exploiting the behavior of some browser when UB is triggered. Except that the programmer is not having nasal demons [1] but some poor user, like a mom of four children in Abraska running a website on her cell phone.

[1] http://catb.org/jargon/html/N/nasal-demons.html

I thought so, but "Copyright" is always the same? Haha, that's dangerously clever or cleverly dangerous.

That's Henry George.

I don't understand all consequences yet, except one, that the wealthy and powerful object to it because it hurts them and so the Land Value Tax is rarely introduced. Even if it gets introduced, it will abolished soon thereafter.

AI is one sharp tool cutting slices from the old internet. But perpetrators have used different tools from the start: SEO spam, algorithmic feeds, embrace/extend/extinguish, building moats, the attention economy, and many others. AI is just the next newfangled sharp tool.

In other words, I don't think that AI is killing the web.

It's being profit-oriented and running amok in an unleashed way. It's prisoner's dilemma. You know, if you don't do it then someone else will do it and you lose. Enshittification is one consequence. The internet experienced it from the beginning. But only about fifteen years ago companies learnt how to squeeze the last drop out and, like in the tragedy of the commons, everybody is worse off.

And what's the most catastrophic? People are confused. They look at the tools but not at some famous people behind these rampages. Of course as leaders they just optimize the hell out of the internet with the target that their companies thrive. But in doing so they cause heavy damage.

Maybe. Maybe not. Given the human material (yes I know a dehumanizing formulation, but that's what Corporate does) it seems it's better not to step on anybody's toes except if it's abundantly clear that the person doesn't have a voice in things, but even then it's risky. Corporate is self-selecting: companies that don't generate profit die off sooner or later. Therefore we can conclude (if a bit shakily) from the norm in Corporate not to insult anybody that internal strife has been very damaging and therefore that Corporate self-selects in an evolutionary manner to avoid anything that leads to internal strife.

Or add spirits.

Another way: Let ferment it to the max. If fermentation doesn't consume all the sugar, then it's somewhat stable.

Ancient wines also had resins added. Today these would probably have tasted almost medicinal, but often they are diluted before serving. Wine dilution is still a custom in some parts of Italy. I was invited to a party in Tuscany and they served a lot of Lambrusco amabile and for the children they diluted it and because Lambrusco amabile is rather sweet it was a little bit an oldfashioned soft drink. I tried it, too, and it's refreshing. I don't know whether it's sacrilegous but as one says, in Rome do as Romans do.

It's a font that morphes the text fragment "am-" into the curly dash using a ligature.

https://chriscoyier.net/2025/05/10/the-am-dash/

But that won't help for long. If the Amdash becomes popular, then AI will pick it up, because "am-" is just a text fragment and AI can learn to produce it.

Even worse if a future version of Unicode adopts the Amdash, then nothing will stop AI.

Or the opposite happens as one already said here: Nobody will use the Amdash.

Yes because "pics or it didn't happen"

Autism is seen as a large and wide spectrum of many different symptoms all called "autism". Using terms like "high functioning autism" is probably not a helpful way to talk about some color on the spectrum, however.

Source: I am the parent of a child with autism.

Perhaps unsigned could help here with understanding.

unsigned means, don't use of an integer MSB as sign bit. __nonstring means, the byte array might not be terminated with a NUL byte.

So what happens if you use integers instead of byte arrays? I mean cast away unsigned or add unsigned. Of course these two areas are different, but one could try to design such features that they behave in similar ways where it makes sense.

I am unsure but it seems, if you cast to a different type you lose the conditions of the previous type. And "should this be legal", you can cast away a lot of things and it's legal. That's C.

But whatever because it's not implemented. This all is hypothetical. I understand GCC that they took the easier way. Type strictness is not C's forte.

True.

This would be only useful in typedefs. An API could declare some byte arrays not strings. But again, whatever.

I do understand.

I imagine that it could work a little bit like unsigned: a modifier to integer types that tells that an integer's MSB is not to be used as a sign bit.

__nonstring__ tells that the last byte of a byte sequence doesn't need to be NUL.

I would find it sensible allowing putting the attribute to a type, but whatever.

That's a simplification.

AFAIC an Armenian scientist integrated Sci-Hub with Libgen, perhaps the one you meant. But the story is a lot more complicated. It's not wrong to say that Libgen is something that Russia did for the world.

Edit: I meant Russia-not-the-state.

Perhaps. I read about horror stories of servers chasing leaving customers and harrassing them for not tipping or too little.

But of course GP was deliciously ironic, so take all with a grain of salt and a dash of black humor.

The thing is, you sound hopeful, which I think you should find worrying by itself.

To be explicit: You feel the chilling effect.

Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chilling_effect) says:

[...] a chilling effect is the inhibition or discouragement of the legitimate exercise of natural and legal rights by the threat of legal sanction. A chilling effect may be caused by legal actions such as the passing of a law, the decision of a court, or the threat of a lawsuit; any legal action that would cause people to hesitate to exercise a legitimate right (freedom of speech or otherwise) for fear of legal repercussions.

In other words:

A chilling effect is when people are scared to use their rights because they fear legal trouble. This can happen because of new laws, court rulings, or threats of lawsuits. It makes people hesitate to do something they’re normally allowed to do.

You are wondering whether to go abroad. BOOM.

In the long run the invisible hand will dole out rewards and punishments

Only in competitive markets.

First, I decided I am going to avoid atop. Even if Rachel would be wrong, it doesn't hurt not to use some specific software I don't depend on.

If someone I trust tells me to trust them, I will.

Huh? When I trust someone, then I trust already and there's no need being told to trust. When I don't trust someone, then I run away when being told to trust. Hell, if someone tells me to trust them, it's a red flag and I drop the trust.

I found your analogy of a librarian only giving out quotes insightful and enlightening. Thank you.

It was a TIL moment for me: Make the training data available and indexable! Similar to a snapshot of humanity's complete knowledge and stories.

Today the AI models are like a librarian who knows well all books of the library but can't carry around the library in a bag. There was a time when she read all the books, but now the books are in thousands of crates in sub-basements and not available.

I envision a future where exabytes of data or more are stored in a smartphone-like device in something like a tiny crystal. The AI model on request can make a copy of some original for you. And this thing can't be bricked.

Quite the opposite. Balkonkraftwerk sounds immediately clear and convincing.

German Wikipedia has an article about it: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balkonkraftwerk

I do wonder how much of the population is using AI.

On page 7 of the paper there's the diagram "Minimum fraction of tasks in use". On the left side about 75% of occupations use at least one tasks and on the right side the maximum is some occupation that uses slightly more than 95% of the tasks.

Cool.

Here I start to wonder how they got that graph.

At the start of section 3. Methods and analysis on page 4 it's said:

To understand how AI systems are being used for different economic tasks, we leverage Clio [Tamkin et al., 2024], an analysis tool that uses Claude [Anthropic, 2024] to provide aggregated insights from millions of human-model conversations. We use Clio to classify conversations across occupational tasks, skills, and interaction patterns, revealing breakdowns across these different categories. All analyses draw from conversation data collected during December 2024 and January 2025.

So this means they use real people's chats to make these estimations. I don't know Clio, but perhaps they did this? They sample chats from individuals, and some individuals never chatted and some individuals delegated all their work to Claude. But I wonder how they estimated the total numbers of tasks of an individual.

I am sure these answers are found by really going deep and reading the cited sources and running some experiments yourself, but I can't be bothered, sorry.

Again, I really wonder how much of total population use AI? How much? How do parts of population differ? Can this be found out at all?

Some people will put it as as small server somewhere, then this battery is like a backup power for servers but built-in. Framework even sells a small case for this sort of usage. If I had skin in that game, I would do this. For developping end-user software, just ssh in and program away!

Same for me. My brain broke down somewhat, but luckily I am retired. I often ask AI like "What's the word for a smaller variant of something?", super helpful.

You mean a diminutive.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diminutive

A diminutive is a word obtained by modifying a root word to convey a slighter degree of its root meaning, either to convey the smallness of the object or quality named, or to convey a sense of intimacy or endearment, and sometimes to belittle something or someone.

Yeah, it's funny, a word consisting both of an augmentative (the opposite of diminutive) and a diminutive.

There are two forces fighting with each other: Many protons repel each other with their positve electric charge. But they also attract each other with their strong force. It's complicated but if you simplify you could say too large nuclei tend not to hold together.

If you add electric neutral neutrons you have more strong force but the electrical repulsion doesn't increase. So if you have more neutrons, you might have larger nuclei.

They measured what happens if some element's isotope has too few neutrons. They were surprised about the extremely short half-times. From that they estimated on the opposite side (again simplifying here!) that very large nuclei with a lot of neutrons could be stabler than known up to today.

So: on one side (few neutrons) extremely unstable, so on the other side (more neutrons) stabler than expected?

That's what I understood from the article. I have no idea.

I am not a cryptography expert but even I know it's wrong that a company I worked at stored passwords in plaintext because my boss told me, customers call in to ask for their password and supports happily gives it to them.

When I rolled my eyes up, I soon got a termination.