tigertigertiger

My fault, for some reason I had the Euro Chart which had 0.83€ as all time low.

DAI is far from it's lowest point right now.

I'm working a lot with Google ads and when I tested ChatGPT it was just not able to limit their output to a certain number of characters. It always failed to give at max 90 characters. When I tell it, that it used more, it apologizes, gives another output and makes the same mistake.

Not for a scala dev and not for someone with his experience, that's just wrong.

Both models, imagen and parti didn't had a problem with text. Only dalle and stable diffusion

Crazy that I had to scroll this far to read this. This diet is crazy good at losing muscle mass. Atleast you can lose kg at doubled speed.

The topic was about loans. How often do you need a loan for under 1k dollars?

The difference is obvious. If they steal a Mercedes it's gone, the car dealer does not have it anymore.

You are the only one that got the problem. I was wondering why even the author of the article got the problem wrong. A perfect logican always needs a 100% chance for stopping the game. Each message could either be: a) the exact same strategy b) the same strategy with a small variance that is also reasonable c) a completely reasonable other strategy d) just a color e) waiting or something unrelated to the problem itself

The problem is that every proposal of a-e could get matched with something a-e that ruins it.

Examples:

1. I say just a color, they say just a color. You stay by the color they also stay, you decide to switch they also do it at the same time.

2. You propose something to confirm, so did they and we are back at 1.

3. You decide to do something random and they also decide to do something random with the same outcome

Since you are both perfect logical, you will realize that, making any try obsolete.

So you could try to get to know each other and just chat to something unrelated but there is still the problem that they could exactly mirror your messages again.

So you both come to the conclusion that there is no 100% strategy. You could now decide that you should continue playing the game forever or decide that a strategy with less than 100% is good enough.

Both have etablished now that using a meta strategy to agree on something is just a waste of time, because of a-e and we can just stay on the main layer. Repeating the color is also useless because the other might have the same strategy. So the only solution would be to announce just random colors and as soon as they match we end the game and are free. Theoretically they never have to match so the game could just go forever (hence it's not 100%).

Yeah I can't keep track about the weekly times the whole internet went down. Probably a couple of times a week

That's the way games work.

Doesnt having a good memory give advantage to chess players?

Or having good reflexes benefit shooter player?

Except for the fact that YouTube already has a membership model for creators on top of their ads model, so you can be a paid subscriber (which includes other benefits) on YouTube too to support your favorite creators.

Not really, because they met at different times.

Dai was battle tested and proven under the worst possible scenarios

Yes and it failed horrible and resulted in 9 million dollars loss because of a design flaw:

https://blog.makerdao.com/the-market-collapse-of-march-12-20...

Lol at 2%. Not even 2% of devs in silicon valley could do that.

Thanks that's a very good point and definitely a new perspective

Well I did it. I made art myself, even special one. I made one of the biggest perler bead art in europe with about 70.000 beads (maybe even the world?). Would I appreciate my artwork? As some kind of skill - yes (having immense duration and boredom), as something that has a special intrinsic variable beside being bigger than other pieces - no.

I'm aware that every skill and talent takes some kind of luck to "make it". I just say that art lacks any objective qualities and is just based on choices of some elite circle that don't even match public opinion.

Of which kind of music are we talking about? If you mean some art of abstract music or music that gets approved from some elite circle, I would indeed make the same arguments and don't see a flaw.

My main point is that there is no objective comparison between thousand of pieces and when we take the choices of the elite circle and compare it to intersubjective choices of the masses there would be little to no overlapping. So my point would still be "Why is your elite opinion more worth or correct than the collective opinion of the whole world?"

Thanks for your opinion. I just tend to disagree with your examples.

Programming languages are in their core something like a craft. There are about 700 languages and even if you know nothing about programming languages at all, if I explain to you the concept of how difficult it is to make one and that only about 700 of them ever got made, you will probably understand that this is not something a lot of people could do even if they try. It's also something that can be compared and gets popular and approved because of its usefulness.

The same can be applied to technology, the best technology will may not be the most adaptive one but we can compare them and if they would get the same possibilities (exposure, marketing, timing etc) people would probably agree which one is the better one to some extend (ebay vs amazon) I don't see the component in art. There is just to many of it and if we would show 10.000 people 20 artworks and let them rank them from best to worst I would imagine the list would be different from the ranking of art critics.

I think your comment really helped me. I don't have anything against art itself. It's more about glorifying artists and artworks to level that just can't get explained.

I know I will be down voted to hell for this but maybe somebody can tell me where I'm wrong in my thinking. First of all I know nothing about art so that already disqualifies everything I will rant now.

For me artists are nothing more like the embodiment of the survivor ship bias. I can appreciate something that takes skill to create, be it a craft, a poetry, or even a photorealistic drawing. I can appreciate something that raises emotions in me (I'm aware that rasing emotions is a highly subject criteria as well). I can appreciate something that is new and unique.

None of these things is true for 99.9% of art, this artist included. I think these artworks are not different from atleast thousands of other graffiti doodles from other people. Somehow people start to praise this guy (seemingly random?) instead of anyone else. That's just survivor ship bias.

I know people say it all the time but it's true "I could have made this". My point is that probably most of art critic's couldn't tell the difference between a random doodle of some random art student and most famous abstract art.

It's also not about having an unique idea, banana on the wall is not something special, people do crazy things all the time. There are probably thousand of wanna be artists that tape things on walls and make some random things in hope of getting famous and could tell you some deep thinking why it criticises our modern society.

So for me art is just a random circle jerk of people telling each other that this special guy is good and the rest isn't and if you don't agree or see it you are just someone that has no idea about art. And my take on really high expensive art is that it's just a form of tax evasion or similar goals.

I think that there is a general misconception in thinking that Mensa beeing "highly intelligent under-achievers". People that are not putting hard work into something are under-achievers in any demographics, because that's what the word implies. It's not a inherent problem in Mensa. Being lazy is the norm, it makes sense from an evolutionary perspective, being an over-achiever is something that has to be trained.

It's not like that if you are intelligent you will automatically succeed and become the next genius. But without intelligence in the first place it's close to impossible to achieve something extraordinary.

In the whole article the word Intelligence or IQ wasn't mentioned once. The whole Bill Gates success formula is "healthy childhood and no daycare" is complete bullshit. You know what enabled him in the first place to be a genius? Being a genius. For outliers like Gates, Goethe and Gauß you don't need any of these mentioned factors. It is close to 100% just genetics. Also survivor ship bias is a huge factor.