angrysaki

The bigger difference is that the net utility for LLMs could turn out to be massively negative

I'd rather trust the people directly involved, whose interests are mostly clear and known.

That seems like a wild statement to me. Just so I understand what you're saying. Are you saying you would trust Meta's statements on if their algorithms are harmful to youth/society over independent researchers because those researchers might have some hidden bias?

I don't have an answer, but I don't think the framing should be about what they deserve or not. It should be around how much money an individual can have/control before it becomes detrimental to society.

It's almost like the people who spend their time thinking and researching the positives and negatives of a particular company/service come to different conclusions than the people who make money off the company or are directly marketed it.

but also created an immense amount of value in society

I would say value is subjective. For example, some people might consider a successful game as having created value. Others might view it as too addictive and see the negative value on society as a whole.

It could be very true that in the long arc of history, most of the "value" these companies have created is seen as a net negative. Take smartphones for example. They have created "value" but it's very possible that in 100 years when we better can evaluate what they have done to kids who grew up with them, we well conclude that they were a net negative until their usage was rained in. The only opposing force is government regulation and that's exactly what is wrong with these types of companies (and billionaires in general). They are the ones that stop reasonable legislation from happening because they have too much power because they are so large/rich.

I would say having a good hot reload system gives you the benefit of wysiwyg with more readable code

The compiler gives us a way to deal with this situation. It is all about being absolutely clear with intentions. Yes, Where(..) in my example would return IEnumerable<TR?> but then in subsequent code I can tell the compiler that I know for a fact that TR? is actually TR by using the null forgiving operator (!).

I guess that seems way less clear with intentions to me. If I have an array of potentially null types and I want to filter out the not nulls, I'd much rather have an operation that returns a T[] vs a T?[].

I should also note that I also have a "IEnumerable<T> WhereNotNull(IEnumerable<T>?)" function in my codebase, but I implemented it using a foreach/yield which doesn't suffer from the extra Cast<>()

Also, the design of this this method doesn't seem to make much difference to me anyways:

``` var strs = source.SelectNotNull(it => it); ```

vs

``` var strs = source.Where(it => it != null); ```

Wouldn't the first be IEnumerable<TR> and the second be IEnumerable<TR?>

I imagine that's the main driver for creating SelectNotNull, so that you get the nonnullable type out of the Linq query

Before I put my fedora back on and leave, could you answer this question:

Do you truly think the evidence you provided would convince someone ignorant on the matter that there really was a migrant crisis that warrants the Trump administration's behavior?

So apart from some 300 million number, it's just all vibes?

Here I was expecting data about how all these illegal immigrants are causing crimes everywhere at higher rates than americans, or how many cats and dogs they've eaten but I guess there's no actual evidence of a crisis.

What are the symptoms of this "unprecedented crisis" and what makes it a crisis?

Wouldn't it be:

"when building a house, obviously a hammer is more important than the _paper_ blueprints. This isn't art class, it's construction".

(when digital notes/digital blueprints are an available option)

About 20 years ago I changed from running in basketball shoes to minimal shoes. At the time I was only running about 5K. It took me about 10 months to work up to 5k in the minimal shoes.

My general approach is to run less far but more often since you usually don't notice tendon injuries while you're exercising, but a day or two later.

“The model assumes that people directly choose partners based on their observed cognitive ability, but in reality, partner selection might happen indirectly through other related characteristics or through more complex patterns,”

Seems like a pretty wild assumption to make. Maybe they need that to simplify their model, but still...

I don't disagree, which is sort of my point. The democratic party apparatus and their allies don't want that platform/message.

I was mostly just pointing g out ghat there is a stance/platform that could combat right wing populism.

Just picture Bernie Sanders hammering home that the wealthy are screwing everybody. That's the kind of messaging they need but they would rather loose than move left.

I tried virtual desktops for a while and I'm pretty sure I was using this app for hotkeys to each desktop. https://github.com/hwtnb/SylphyHornPlusWin11

(I don't use virtual desktops anymore so I don't remember that well)

Without government regulations, are you sure the corporate merger of Amazon, Google, Verizon Walmart & Microsoft would let you?

My hunch is that it has something to do with doing/accomplishing something "hard" together. I'm also guessing that the harder it is, the more bonding automatic bonding you get.

I'm sure there's some truth to this but I don't think that is what is happening in this case. From what I can gather, this is about people who trained for a goal, and during the event an unexpected "weak link" in the chain gave out so they found a mechanical solution.

I'm sure if most of them had gotten this during training, they would have taken the time to recover.

I find that personally this is a big one for me, except I spend my time road cycling. Depending on who you are the competitive aspect of group riding can be very enjoyable. (Different sports may be a better fit depending on who you are)

Not sure when your experiences are from, but in .net core they redid the csproj format which is much smaller and human readable (I often just edit the XML instead of using the designer). I think most (all?) of the source for .net core is available so well.

I dont know EF well but there is a rewritten core version

Drawings of bicycles from memory, rendered in 3D:

https://www.behance.net/gallery/35437979/Velocipedia

I think it's that the cycling movement is just more efficient for sustained efforts, possibly because it uses less muscles. For sustained efforts, I don't think being able to use more muscles is an advantage, since you're going to be limited by your cardiovascular system. If you created a bike that you could also generate power with your arms, i woudln't expect to be able to put out more power because muscles are the limiter. The muscle fiber distribution might be in favor of only using your legs as well (eg. fast vs slow twitch)

I'm not much of a rower, but after your pull, pulling your body forward for the next row is all wasted effort as far as producing mechanical work. Cycling doesn't really have any wasted phase like this.

Here's a bunch of rowers comparing their cycling/rowing watts: https://www.c2forum.com/viewtopic.php?f=31&t=186612

What I'm not sure is if you were to measure total energy expenditure at the human (as opposed to the spinning wheel), then cycling/rowing might be closer.

Not disagreeing, but just wanted to point out that if the goal was to generate heat then humans could potentially be more efficient because of internal efficiency. The ballpark number I often see is 25% efficiency, so if you were able to somehow capture the waste heat they'd be able to heat up the water 3x as fast.

Or a bigger guy (Ganna), https://www.strava.com/activities/4229195275

333w for 6.5h, 460w for the first climb (35 minutes).

Everything I have seen says cycling is generally more efficient. I think the 80w the author quoted is quite low. They may just be a small very person.

There hasn't been much research, but Stephen Seiler has done some studies with polarized training down to 5-8 hour per week athletes which works well in those situations.

https://scientifictriathlon.com/tts177/#tab-con-16

I think the reasoning is that there are 2 main signaling pathways for endurance adaptations, one from high intensity and one from low intensity and you want to stimulate both for maximal adaptation.

The other part is that if you have more time to train, you simply can't do more and more HIIT without burning out. There are pro cyclists who did very little intensity until race season and just do lots of low intensity.

From what I remember, even elite rowers generally follow an 80/20 polarized model and their events are in the 6-7 minute range.

I agree that HIIT is not some magical training methodology, and that elite endurance athletes do not train by only doing HIIT.

My guess is that if you are only willing to train in the 3h/week range, maybe HIIT is your best bet.

Steven Seiler has studied how most elite endurance athletes train, and found that they generally follow a polarized training model which is ~80% of sessions at low intensity (long endurence runs/rides/etc...) and 20% at high intensity.

http://bikepartsreview.com/Polarized-training-for-cyclists.h...

ASP.NET Core 3.1 added support for partial classes for Razor Components, so I don't think you need to use the inheritance style code behind anymore.

https://gunnarpeipman.com/blazor-partial-page-class/